Romney: Palestinians don't want two-state solution, they want to eliminate Israel

[Violet_Crumble]

The Republican candidate was prompted by a question posed by a Palestinian-American at a Florida debate; opponent Gingrich said in same debate he would move U.S. embassy to Jerusalem as president.

By Natasha Mozgovaya

Governor Mitt Romney said on Thursday that the Palestinians are not interested in a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather that they are interested in the elimination of the State of Israel.

The leading candidate in the race to become the Republican candidate for presidency was prompted by a question posed by a Palestinian-American Republican at a CNN-sponsored debate in Jacksonville, Florida on Thursday night.

"Israelis would be happy to have a two-state solution. It's the Palestinians who don't want a two-state solution; they want to eliminate the State of Israel,” Romney said.

Romney was responding when the man asked, "How would a Republican administration help bring peace to Palestine and Israel, when most candidates barely recognize the existence of Palestine or its people?"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/romney-palestinians-don-t-want-two-state-solution-they-want-to-eliminate-israel-1.409459

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Consider the stated position of Hamas, Fatah etc on the existence of Israel

I think Romney generally is a tosser, but he he may have a point on this one

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. Did you actually watch the debate?

He rolled them all into one neat little blunt before he smoked them.

Questioner identified himself as a Republican of PA heritage and to a one, the dais launched on all Palestinians as if they were all in lock step.

It is no secret that I would not shed a single tear if Hamas fell off the face of the planet tomorrow (I would have to nap just to work up a shrug and a 'meh'), but that was just unbelievable to see.

[Fozzledick]

2. Don't you just hate it when a Republican is actually right about something?

Even if he is a stopped clock.

[Ken Burch]

5. Romney isn't actually right.

And his position on the issue is reactionary-Romney, like you, is against peace between Israel and Palestine.

In order to be FOR peace, you have to admit that Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel and that they have a right to expect that their leadership must be treated as equal by the Israeli leadership in any peace process...not as inferiors for whom self-determination is a privelege to be earned, rather than a natural right.

[Fozzledick]

7. No, in order to be for peace you just have to be against continuing the war.

You really ought to try it some time.

[Ken Burch]

8. The war can only end when Israelis treat Palestinians with equal respect

And don't insist on having the absolute right to make Palestine live at the mercy of the IDF.

Peace requires the nations making peace to be able to do so on a level of parity of esteem, and with neither nation being subordinate to the other.

The only other way to "make peace" is peace-through-victory, which you'd have to agree is impossible for either side in this conflict, and which would be just as ugly if either side ever achieved it. It would be ugly and unforgiveable, for example, for the Israelis to celebrate militarily crushing the Palestinians, just as it would be equally ugly for the Palestinians to wipe out Israel, given that nothing positive or progressive could come of either result.

[Fozzledick]

11. Um, if Israeli treated Palestinians with "equal respect"...

...there wouldn't be any Palestinians left alive!

The Palestinians, or at least their political "leadership", have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in living in peace next to a Jewish state, only in destroying it at any cost. Ugly and unforgivable indeed!

[shira]

26. Too funny! +1 n/t

[hack89]

20. To be for peace you have to stop trying to kill Jews. nt

[Ken Burch]

22. It's never been about "killing Jews"-stop using such terminology.

Nobody should be killed by anyone, but there's no difference between a Palestinian killed by and Israeli and an Israeli killed by a Palestinian...or in either of those events and anyone else being killed by anyone else.

It's just people on one side killing people on the other side. And it's equally wrong everywhere.

With the number of old people, children, and invalids killed among Palestinians, there's probably about parity in terms of the number of innocents killed. You can't assume that all Palestinians who are killed had it coming.

The need is to stop ALL the killing-not act as if the killing done by one side is morally privileged over the killing done by the other. It's wrong to kill, period. And the lives of Palestinians are EQUAL in value to the lives of Israelis-as all other lives are equal in value everywhere else.

[hack89]

25. So routine wars of extermination launched by the Arabs tell us what exactly?

besides wanting to exterminate the Jewish state?

[Ken Burch]

32. The actions of the Palestinians since 1967

are not indistinguishable from the actions of the other Arab countries prior to that.

[King_David]

28. 'Romney, like you, is against peace between Israel and Palestine. '

I am surprised your allowed to continue these wild allegations and insinuations against EVERYBODY you disagree with.


Mean,disgusting,insulting and innacurate.


You are a real piece of work !!!

[Ken Burch]

33. You're in love with the word "disgusting" today, for some reason.

It doesn't apply to anything I've written(and would you now agree, for the record, that it's wrong to blame ALL Palestinians for Netanya?)but you think it's a cool word today.

[King_David]

38. Yea , I would also be trying to switch topic nt

[Ken Burch]

42. I've said nothing that deserved to be called disgusting.

You just don't think anyone should question the idea that all Palestinians are collectively responsible for everything the most extreme among them do.

How does holding them all responsible help anything, may I ask? It's not as if ordinary, nonviolent Palestinians(and most of them are nonviolent, actually) could do anything to stop Hamas or the Al-Aksa crazies.

[King_David]

43. Whatever nt

[shira]

3. Just the fact that the PLO and Hamas will never budge on RoR...

...goes to show they don't want a two-state solution. They want to eliminate Israel by flooding it with enough Palestinians in order to make it into yet another Arab state.

Oh, and just in case anyone doubts the PA is for the elimination of Israel and against 2 states and peace, here's BOATLOADS of documentation from PA controlled media that proves Romney (ugh, I had to live in MA while he governed here) is right....
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=433&page=6&all=1

[Ken Burch]

4. Actually, you don't know that they'll never budge

They've given many indications that they don't expect EVERY Palestinian to be able to move Israel, or even most.

Then again, your position has never been about wanting peace...you can't say you want peace and then insist that the war is solely the OTHER side's fault and that people on the other side have no legitimate grievances against the side you back.

[shira]

6. Check out the links from my last post before yours...

You'll see the PA is very much against peace and 2 states. Here's the link again...
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=433&page=6&all=1

Israel has offered the Palestinians their own state free of occupation and settlements TWICE within an 8 year period. Both times the PA rejected these credible offers without attempting to make a reasonable counter-offer in return. And your side never held the PA responsible for that, choosing instead to blame only Israel for not offering enough. Which goes to show that what you wrote (see below) is an accurate description of yourself and your allies WRT the I/P conflict.

Then again, your position has never been about wanting peace...you can't say you want peace and then insist that the war is solely the OTHER side's fault...

Maybe you should consider not blaming the other side for things you're guilty of.

[Ken Burch]

9. I do want peace

It's just that, unlike you(and by that I mean you strictly as an individual)I accept that peace must be a peace of equality and compromise, not peace-through-victory, which is impossible in this conflict and which would be ugly for anyone to want for either side.

[shira]

10. Really? So why haven't you ever once condemned the PA....

...not for rejecting 2 peace proposals, but rejecting them without making a reasonable counter-offer in response?

[Ken Burch]

14. I HAVE said the PA should have made a counter-proposal during Oslo.

I just haven't said it over and over again like you keep demanding I do, or argued that that fact, in itself, justifies intransigence on the Israeli side.

You haven't been able to show that the post-2000 Israeli policies towards Palestinians have produced any positive changes whatsover in the Palestinian leadership. If the hard line hasn't worked after 12 years, isn't it time to admit that it never CAN work?

[shira]

16. I haven't seen anyone on your side saying that or criticizing the PA for that...

All I remember is that you guys say Israel is to blame because they didn't offer enough. End of argument. You realize that's ridiculous, don't you? And given that it's ridiculous, it shouldn't come as any surprise to you when your pro-Israel opponents don't take you guys seriously.

Israeli policies since 2000 have been positive WRT their cooperation with the PA economically, reducing checkpoints when it was safe enough to do so, offering medical services to the sick, etc. Even better - unlike the PA - Israel's really good about showing tolerance towards PA leadership that has constantly - and non stop - incited their population to terror and very ugly hatred of Jews. The fact that they didn't destroy the W.Bank during the Intifada or Gaza during OCL - and kept civilian casualties down to a record low in modern warfare goes to show Israel is not as intransigent as you try to sell it. Any other nation would have destroyed Gaza and the W.Bank and would never tolerate thousands of rockets and so many suicide bombers. That's amazing tolerance.

[Ken Burch]

17. I'm not absolutely on any one "side"

I'm for peace-which requires addressing everybody's grievances and acknowledging the pain of all.

[Fozzledick]

12. Gee, "peace-through-victory" worked fine with Germany and Japan.

How is this any different?

You don't make peace with a genocidal totalitarian aggressor by mutual respect and compromise, you do it by destroying their ability to make war.

If the Palestinians wanted "a peace of equality and compromise" they could have negotiated one by now, but they've made it clear that's not their goal.

[Ken Burch]

13. Palestine is not Hitler's Germany or Imperial Japan-and Palestinians are not Nazis or neo-samurai.

Plus, it isn't possible for either side to win outright military victory-if it was, the IDF OR the Palestinians would have managed it by now. That's how it's different.

And, nobody was fighting in World War II to prevent Germany OR Japan from becoming independent countries-they already were, however vile their leaders were. The sovereignty of neither nation was never in question. Furthermore, unlike in the case of the Palestinians, the Japanese and Germans had no legitimate grievances against the nations they went to war with.

Plus, it's disgusting to imply that Palestine is a "genocidal totalitarian aggressor"-they aren't. They don't want a Judenrein world or global domination. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a gutter-level argument. It's beneath you to post things like that. I've never posted anything remotely comparable about Israel.

It isn't possible to end this by crushing the Palestinians-any more than it's possible to end it by crushing Israel-only self-determination and independence for both countries can produce peace.

[Fozzledick]

18. They may not be samurai, but "Judenrein" is EXACTLY what they want.

And despite your desperate attempts to deny it, THAT IS the central issue here.

Israel does in fact have the military strength to totally crush the Palestinians but has chosen not to, contrary to the persistent slander of her enemies. Meanwhile, the Palestinians and the totalitarian states that have used them as proxy cannon-fodder have been trying to crush Israel since 1948 and continue to do so. Perhaps you should address your concerns for respect and compromise to them.

For what it's worth, the Japanese and Germans did in fact claim to have legitimate grievances to justify their aggression. The Germans specifically claimed that they were justified in invading Czechoslovakia and Poland because they had not withdrawn from all of the territory captured in 1917 and abused their ethnic German minorities as second-class citizens (sound familiar?), and Japan made similar, if less credible, claims against Korea and China. The Nuremberg Tribunal found that such grievances, even if true, did not justify unleashing the horrors of war on the world, but some here seem to disagree.

[Ken Burch]

21. Of course they CLAIMED to have such grievances:that doesn't mean they actually did

By contrast, the settlements are a legitimate and massive grievance, the Occupation is a legitimate and massive grievance, and the unwillingness to apologize to and acknowledge the undeserved suffering of those displaced in 1948 and 1967(actions that would not jeopardize Israeli security in the slightest)is also a legitimate grievance.

It needs to be admitted that the Arabs who have lived in Palestine for 1400 years have just as deep a connection to the land as those who call themselves Israeli. Israel could make this acknowledgment without jeopardizing its security at all. You make peace, in wars where neither side is the complete victim and neither is the complete oppressor, like this war, by acknowledging each side's reality.

And it remains unconscionably vile to equate Palestine with Nazi Germany.

BTW, opposition to the settlements is not antisemitism...it's simply an objection to land theft. They'd object if anybody else was settling the West Bank, too-for example, had the Ottoman sent 250,000 ethnic Turks into the West Bank in the name of creating "Greater Anatolia&quot something the Ottoman, who were horrible, never did, btw). The settlers are not in the West Bank in the name of equality and justice...they're there in the name of territorial conquest. Why would you ever think Palestinians should accept the permanent presence of the settlers? The whole point of the settlement project was to take so much land that a Palestinian state couldn't be viable. There was no other purpose to it. That's why, for example, the settlement blocs at Ariel were placed where they were-to bisect the West Bank and make Palestinian territory non-contiguous.

BTW, I don't like Hamas any more than you do, but you do realize that Hamas only holds the power it currently holds because the Israeli leadership was obsessed with discrediting and delegitimizing the PLO, and doing so to the exclusion of any other objective, including ending the war, right?

Hamas' rise proves that nothing good at all came of delegitimizing the PLO-it never works for one side in a continuing dispute to try to dictate who the leadership of the other side should be. It was ridiculous for Begin to insist that he'd only negotiate with non-PLO Palestinians who'd agree to abandon the goal of self-determination(that was the objective of Begin's proposals for Tibetan-style "autonomy&quot . Any such "leadership" that might have theoretically emerged was automatically never going to have credibility with rank-and-file Palestinians, and that certain lack of credibility was automatically make any "agreement" on anything they might sign worthless.
Why defend actions by the Israeli government that made peace less and less possible at every turn?

[shira]

19. Do you believe Hamas is a genocidal totalitarian aggressive outfit?

I want an honest answer to that one. And I dare you to write 'No' in response.

Also, Israel could have achieved outright military victory a long time ago. They've chosen not to. It's not for lack of ability. Israel simply doesn't have the stomach to do it.

[Ken Burch]

23. I don't like Hamas and I don't support them.

It's enough to say that they are extremists. You don't need to load on the adjectives for the sake of loading on the adjectives.

I'm not obligated to address your exact phrase, since it's so over-the-top as to be meaningless. It's enough to say that I'm against Hamas. It's enough to say that they're thugs and that I'd never vote for them if I were Palestinian.

And it's not as if it's only Hamas crazies who are killed on the Palestinian side. There are plenty of innocent Palestinian victims as well. That's always the case in any war.

And you can't assume that Israel could have actually won outright. Like any other army, they'd try to win if they could. What is so terrible about admitting that this really is a stalemate and that the only way out is compromise and an admission that "peace-through-victory" is neither possible nor desirable, since no possible good could come of it?

[Fozzledick]

24. The point is they don't want a two-state solution, they do want to eliminate Israel

and I think we've come full circle.

As for their PLO counterparts in the West Bank, I think Abbas clearly spelled out their true intentions in his recent comments to the Arab League, when he pined for a full-scale war against Israel, if only someone would give him the army to fight it with.

[Ken Burch]

31. The way to stop Hamas, then, is to actually create a REAL two-state solution.

Doing that, creating a new life for Palestinians that actually gives them a future to hope for, would do more to wipe out Hamas than a thousand IDF missile strikes.

Anyone who keeps repeating the Likudnik "no partner for peace" meme is just grasping at straws to defend an indefensible status quo-the Occupation going on for years more in the West Bank(even though keeping it going can't have any positive results)and keeping the settlement construction going-something that can only prevent peace.

The only way to end the conflict is to end the collective repression of Palestinians-it can't end BEFORE the repression ends.

[Fozzledick]

36. So you would have Israel unilaterally impose a 2 state solution...

...that both Palestinian factions have violently rejected? How exactly would that work?

(Never mind that Hamas has explicitly stated that they would consider any two state agreement as a temporary tactical move toward the total destruction of Israel - or is that what you're actually proposing?)

[shira]

27. I wanted an honest answer to that question...

If you really and truly do not believe Hamas is a genocidal totalitarian aggressor, what pray tell would they have to do to convince you they really are? I mean, what have they NOT done to prove they're a genocidal totalitarian aggressor? If you can't answer, then you either have no clue as to what a genocidal totalitarian aggressor is or you're being dishonest.

[Ken Burch]

30. I said I'm against them-why do I have to use YOUR exact phraseology?

Why isn't it enough for you that I don't support them?

Why am I obligated, in your view, to be as obsessed with them as you are?

The main point of disagreement between you and I is that, while I loathe Hamas and have made that clear over and over, I don't think that they are more important than everything else-and furthermore, given the way things have panned out, there's no reason, from what I can see, to think that crushing Hamas militarily(which we both know isn't actually possible without huge numbers of innocent people in Gaza) would only lead to their being replaced by some other group that was worse(as the only thing that could have ever come from "defanging" the PLO was the emergence of something like Hamas).

You're being hysterical in insisting on using that over-the-top phrase that you insist I agree or disagree with-taking a position on those particular words serves no purpose, and can't lead to anything positive.

I think Hamas is a horrible group. That's more than enough.

As far as I can tell, you only keep repeating the phrase "genocidal totalitarian aggressor" because it's the hasbara "phrase of the day" or something. There's nothing sacrosanct about those exact words. The condemnations I've made of Hamas in this thread are enough on their own. To demand that I say exactly the words you want said is childish, and contributes nothing to the discussion.

[shira]

37. As I thought. You know damned well they're a genocidal, psychotic collective...

...but for some reason you believe describing them that way is a knock on all Palestinians, and therefore racist or bigoted. I've got news for you: Hamas is not one with all the people they oppress and abuse on a daily basis. You've seen these quotes before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x370185#370388

I don't see a reason (other than being far too generous to Hamas) not calling them for what they are. Especially given the fact that neither you or your colleagues here can attempt to refute the charge with anything substantive.

Now I'm curious. You have in the past (and evidence abounds in DU threads) demonized Israel and the IDF to no end. You even criticize supporters of Israel here more harshly than you do Hamas. I'm wondering why you're holding back against Hamas. You don't support them. That's enough... What is it that makes you think it's better to slam Israel, its citizens, and its supporters way, way more than Hamas? You exhibit far more anger towards the Israeli side than Hamas. What's going on here? You can't possibly think the Israeli side is worse than Hamas, can you?

[Ken Burch]

39. I'm against Hamas. They are violent and extreme-but "genocidal"?

Their opposition to the West Bank settlements does not equate to a desire to kill every Israeli, or even every settler, or even any settlers at all. Wanting people to leave land they've stolen does not equate to wanting said people to be physically wiped out.

And the missiles aimed as Sderot, inexcusable as that were, have hardly been "genocidal" in effect. I doubt they were genocidal in intent. Violent in intent, unacceptable in intent, inexcusable in intent...but not genocidal.

There have been a lot of genocides in this world(as I certainly shouldn't have to remind you). It cheapens the phrase, and mocks the reality of the suffering of the victims of actual genocides, to insist on applying it here, where it simply doesn't fit. Saying it doesn't fit does not mean that Hamas isn't a horrible organization...it simply means being precise about the use of language and not reducing the whole debate to the level of melodramatic hysteria.

And if you've admitted that it's just a "charge" to say that Hamas is "genocidal", you really can't argue that saying they are is not subject to reasonable discussion.

Also, here's the thing...if Hamas is in control of Gaza now, this is in large measure due to the actions of the Israeli government in trying to discredit the PLO-Hamas mainly grew as a result of the PLO and the PA being made to look powerless and irrelevant by the Israeli political and military leadership. Therefore, if Hamas actually were to be considered genocidal, you'd be implicating the Israeli government itself in the rise to prominence of a group with genocidal intent towards Israelis. Do you REALLY want to go there?

Once again, Hamas' existence, if it means anything, means that the Israeli government made an unbelievably reckless mistake in putting the destruction of the PLO above all other objectives in the I/P dispute. All "defanging" the PLO managed to do was to give Hamas its big break in show business. How could anything be worse if the PLO had NOT been "defanged" and the PA not discredited?

[shira]

90. Yeah, they're genocidal. Here's some damning evidence I want you to comment on...

Last edited Fri May 18, 2012, 08:55 PM - Edit history (2)

But first, you started by saying this ugly opposition to Israel by Hamas is a result of W.Bank settlements. If you really believe that, you know zero about the I/P conflict and have no business spewing nonsense here that does nothing for the peace process. Here's Hamas' Ismael Haniyeh saying very clearly that the problem is Israel itself. They believe ALL Israel is occupied, so please cut the shit about Israel only needing to leave the W.Bank and all will be okay.

&feature=player_embedded

==================

Now for the genocidal incitement...

==================

Here's recent video footage from the last few weeks of the PA Mufti calling for the killing of Jews...

&feature=player_embedded

If it weren't for the allegedly "rightwing, bigoted" PMW, this would still be going on unabated. That Mufti was appointed by the PA, not Hamas. Once this video got out and public figures complained, Abbas fired this guy. But it still goes to show how ingrained the mass murder of Jews is within the territories. It isn't just this guy either, as you'll see below that plenty more public figures appointed by Hamas and the PA do the same thing on a daily basis. I know, I know....you doubt that and don't believe this 'bigoted' Israeli hasbara. Well, we're not finished yet. We're just getting started...

===================

PA cleric: Kill Jews...

===================

Here's another vile video. Now I know when you see it, you'll argue that the occupation is the reason for such genocidal hatred not seen in 65-75 years. If you do that, you need to realize you're excusing the very worst kind of Jew hatred. Other pathological Jew haters throughout history also had their bullshit 'excuses'.

===================

Yet another gem from the PA publishing a child 'dreaming' of Hitler as her hero for killing Jews. Now where on earth would she get that idea from? Oh right, she's a child victim of the IDF and that explains it. But then again, how does she connect that to Hitler if it hasn't been ingrained into her mind non-stop by Palestinian leadership? Follow the thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=1249

===================

Here's a very popular music video that ran for 4-5 years on PA TV advocating the killing of Jews who live beyond the green line...

===================

Palestinian girl calls for genocide of Jews on Palestinian Authority TV...

&feature=related

===================

And now let's finally move to Hamas. They're worse than the PA, remember? The PA is pretty bad as you can see above, but now onto Hamas. Here's a Hamas video compilation of some of their worst shit WRT the annhilation of Jews.

&feature=related

===================

Hamas spokesperson calls for genocide of all Jews...

&feature=related

===================

Hamas: Quran sentences Jews to extermination...

&feature=related

===================

Hamas: Kill Christians and Jews to the last one...

&feature=related

===================

Hamas suicide terrorist farewell video: Palestinians drink the blood of Jews...

&feature=related

===================

Hamas children's TV program calling for slaughter of Jews...

&feature=related

===================

Hamas TV: Palestinian children are taught genocide of Jews is God's will...

&feature=related

===================

I could go on but that should be enough to anyone objective and reasonable. In the event that's not enough and you have some way of whitewashing or excusing the above, here are some experts on genocidal Jew hatred....

===================

Simon Wiesenthal Center: Send The EU A Message To Act Against Hamas' Genocidal Threats
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4442245&ct=5852199

===================

Robert Wistrich (Director of The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem):

Comparing Islamic anti-Semitism to Nazi Germany at its worst
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/comparing-islamic-anti-semitism-to-nazi-germany-at-its-worst-1.4854

===================

David Keyes (Executive director of Advancing Human Rights)
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=839

===================

Oh wait, I forgot. These experts on antisemitic genocidal hatred are Zionist stooges. They're full of crap. Bigots and Racists. They don't have any evidence backing those allegations up.......not even the videos b/c those are from rightwing sources that probably faked the translations. Or maybe the Zionist Lobby forced Hamas and the PLO to threaten Jews with genocide. Yet another Zio-Lobby rightwing plot against the poor Palestinians who were forced to threaten Jews with extinction!!!

[shira]

91. Sorry for all the videos. If someone knows how to get rid of the videos...

...while keeping links to the videos, I'll change it immediately.

[Jefferson23]

93. Why do want to get rid of the videos and keep only the links?

Personally I find post#90 another eye opener to your perspective.

[shira]

94. Post #90 is an eye opener into my perspective. How so? N/T

[Jefferson23]

95. You posted them, they don't reflect your perspective?? n/t

[shira]

96. Of course they reflect my perspective...

...but how is it eye opening to you? Is there something wrong it?

[Jefferson23]

97. Your sources speak to your perspective, whether I agree with it or not

is not the point. I wondered why you wanted to leave only the links,
as they stand now, one has an idea of what they'll see before they
click on just a link.

[Ken Burch]

98. You're twisting my words, again

I said the conflict had a lot to do with the Occupation and the settlements, not that Hamas' was caused by the Occupation and the settlements. Hamas came into prominence for a variety of reasons...one of the most important being the Israeli government campaign to neutralize and discredit the PLO. Will you now admit that that government was totally wrong to put bringing down the PLO before and above any other objectives, since it had the effect of raising up Hamas?

And I haven't used the phraseology you ended your post with. Don't attack me for what other people have said. I don't use words like "Zionist stooges".

I'm against Hamas. But it serves no purpose to put the demonization and destruction of Hamas before anything else that needs to happen in this situation. All obsessing on Hamas does is to give the worst actors within the Israeli political and military leadership an excuse to not change anything. Why should they be given that excuse, when the status quo isn't sustainable?

[shira]

99. Ken, you didn't comment on what was or wasn't genocidal...

Last edited Mon Jan 30, 2012, 07:43 AM - Edit history (2)

You don't even appear to be disturbed or shocked by the material.

Neither did Jefferson23 comment or show any emotion, for that matter.

Why not?

I can't imagine you'd remain as silent if the nastiest, most extreme settler Jews were caught on tape like that, and the GOI was behind it as is the PLO and Hamas. Or if this were still happening on a large scale in Germany, for example. But when the Palestinians do it, whatever? Explain please.

You keep saying it's Israel's fault Hamas is in power, but the PLO is just as bad as Hamas when it comes to this kind of incitement. Here's the latest from PA television, glorifying the murderers of the Fogel family...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4182373,00.html

Is it Israel's fault the PLO does all that?

Why shouldn't there be a major focus on this? You want it all swept under the rug, why? You don't think this has anything at all to do with a failed peace process?

Worse, you say this is demonization of Hamas aimed at their destruction. What makes it OTT demonization rather than criticism? If settlers said this and were called on it, would you call that demonization? I certainly wouldn't. It would make world headlines, and rightly so. What makes you think Hamas needs to be destroyed if this news goes viral and leads to relentless worldwide condemnation?

[Ken Burch]

100. What I'm saying is that, loathesome as they are, Hamas are not more important

than everything else, and that the best way to get past them is to take away the legitimate grievances that Palestinians feel against the Israeli authorities(and this can be done without dismantlling Israel, btw) that Hamas misuses to recruit people to its cause. This means admitting, for example, that the dispute is not, and hasn't ever really been, based solely or primarily on Palestinian and or Arab antisemitism...it means admitting that, while terrorism is wrong, Palestinians have good reason to feel the kind of anger that drives them to that.

It simply means acknowledging the Palestinian peoples' own reality-the sense that the Occupation is an oppressive act to them and that they have a right to regard it as an injustice. Doing that doesn't endanger Israel or Israelis in the slightest.

I want to be rid of Hamas...it's just that you and I disagree on how to do that. And it's just that your way of dealing with them has been a failure and will always be a failure.a

Also, with groups like Hamas, loud shrill public condemnation simply doesn't work. All it achieves is to make it a point of honor for Hamas not to change at all and for those who had supported it(and who are moving away from it on their own)to continue to do so.

Finally, in the post I responded to, I didn't use the word "demonization". I've used that term only for Palestinians in general, btw, not for Hamas or anyone else in any of the "leaderships". My main point has been, and remains, that the actions of the leaderships don't justify collective repression and retribution against ALL Palestinians, and that Hamas' existence doesn't justify not changing anything that the Israeli government does in the name of "security", as you appear(if I'm reading you right)to believe, and that possibly, Hamas' existence justifies the continued settlement project in the West Bank.

[shira]

101. You're assuming Hamas and the PLO will stop with the genocidal incitement...

...once Israel gets out of the W.Bank. If Israel just turns over the land, the PLO and Hamas will certainly moderate their views towards Israel. And your evidence for this is......what? Do you believe that until land is given back, there's really no reason to attempt to hold the PLO and Hamas accountable for 1940's type incitement? No reason to even mention it?



Israel left Gaza and that strengthened Hamas. Israel traded land for rockets and more of the same WRT genocidal incitement. Israel left S.Lebanon and Hezbollah is stronger than ever. Back in the 90's, Israel gave authoritative control of areas A and B of the W.Bank to the PLO. That brought about Intifada 2.

And you think my way - and what does that mean - has been a failure and always will be. Let's agree on that for the sake of argument. Why do you think your way, which has also been a failure (land for rockets, suicide bombers, several wars) will work?

How are Palestinians demonized here? Please explain. If you meant they're criticized, then of course they are! What's wrong with that? What kind of irrational criticism are the Palestinians receiving here?

And where do you get collective retribution against Palestinians for genocidal incitement? The PLO was offered 2 credible peace deals. They didn't attempt to pass back a reasonable counter-offer. What do you think they want? Be honest. If it was land, then they could have simply passed a counter-offer back demanding less land swaps and more of the 1948-67 land. That's reasonable. They didn't do that, so what does the PLO want in your opinion?

Obviously Hamas' existence (as well as the PLO) doesn't justify the occupation/settlements. Barak and then Olmert's government offered to end the occupation and settlements despite Hamas/PLO genocidal incitement. So once again I can't understand where you're coming from.

Finally, I'll assume you realize both the PLO and Hamas deliberately engage in genocidal incitement. Don't you think the Israelis have a right to at least negotiate borders and security before moving on? Obama called for that. The PLO rejected it as they're evading negotiations. They know they won't be offered anything better than Olmert, so what's the point? They'll once again prove to be frauds w/o making a reasonable counter-offer in return. They know they can get away with it too, as your comrades will defend the PLO no matter what, in order to blame Israel instead.

[Ken Burch]

102. By "your way", I mean the idea of assuming the whole thing is the Palestinians' fault

That Palestinians have NO legitimate grievances with the Israeli government, and that the way to end the war is to keep pushing for the unattainable objective of "peace through victory". And the belief that keeping Palestinians living collectively at the mercy of the occupying troops can possibly make them do things differently. Hasn't the complete failure of the Occupation in that regard suggested to you, in any way at all, that maintaining the status quo in the West Bank is utterly pointless?

[shira]

103. I didn't say that. But settlements and occupation aren't even close to the primary...

...reason the conflict goes on. Remember, all neighboring Arab states attacked Israel in 1967 before any settlements or occupation. That has to be settled first in order for there to be something somewhat close to peace. What happened up until 1948 has to be settled. How can that realistically happen? You tell me how Israel could have negotiated with the PLO and neighboring Arab states, let's say, in 1965. What would they have negotiated for? What could they have reasonably given the PLO and all their neighboring states in exchange for peace?



That's right. Israel committing national suicide would have resulted in "peace". In 1965 there weren't any territories they could trade in a land for peace swap.

As for "peace through victory", that's impossible. All of Israel's neighboring states are just as bad as what those PMW videos convey WRT the PLO/Hamas. Israel can't possibly make peace with that. Get real. I think you and your colleagues here know that's the main reason the conflict goes on (PMW style videos throughout the mideast). It's not only b/w Israel and the Palestinians but b/w Israel and the entire mideast. It's still an Arab/Israel conflict. All NATO combined along with Israel can't turn the mideast around. They'd have to occupy all those lands for at least as long as the USA has had troops in Japan and Germany. More than 65 years...

IMO, the best Israel can hope for is to eventually annex some percentage of the W.Bank (swap land here and there) and then get out. If you think the PLO/Hamas would work for real peace, if only Israel were to go back exactly to the 1948 lines, you're kidding yourself. Again, those PMW videos show that's absolutely impossible. There's no peace that can result when that's going on. The PLO didn't even counter-offer with a better land proposal in 2000 and 2008. Why would they be happy with the 1948 borders? They didn't even counter with the '48 lines (or even the '47 Partition lines) to Barak or Olmert. So what kind of peace could be achieved if Israel goes back to the 1948 lines, or even the '47 Partition lines? What could they possibly trade for peace after that? Absolute surrender? National suicide?

So there can never be real peace. If the anti-Israel crowd truly thinks there can be peace, if only Israel returns to the 1948 borders, they're beyond delusional. It will take generations. Probably more than a century to clean up all that insanity throughout the mideast that you see in the PMW videos.

And it's not at all bigoted to say that. The reality is that those countries are ruled by very bad men. Put liberal Arabs in absolute command (using illiberal methods to deal with PMW style insanity) and then we can talk peace. But not before. It won't happen of course...

Peace talks are a joke. The PMW videos show there won't be peace anytime soon. What you see on those videos happens throughout the mideast. Too many minds have been poisoned with that filth. Israel can't do anything with that. So IMO, Israel should get out of almost all the W.Bank, and throw in a few more concessions from the Clinton and Geneva Initiatives in exchange for some non-aggression pact with all their neighbors. That's pretty much all they have with Egypt and Jordan. Israel could then become part of NATO, getting some ironclad guarantee that Israel is covered if attacked. Line up International troops armed to the teeth with rocket shields all around the borders of Israel. If you want to call that a peace deal, fine. I'm for that kind of peace deal, but that's not peace. We all know that. But it's probably the closest thing to "peace" anyone could hope for.

I think you should stop saying there can be peace if only....

=======

Now WRT failure, you very well know that Israel giving up land for rockets and more nasty PMW videos all across the mideast simply doesn't work. That's an absolute failure as well. Why is it impossible for you to see that "your way" is a failure?

[Ken Burch]

104. There's no justification for any Israeli annexation of ANY part of the West Bank

Any annexation would guarantee that the fighting would never end.

Also, I don't say "there could be peace if only...". The suggestions I've made have involved a complex approach with a variety of steps, including a Truth and Reconciliation commission in which people from BOTH sides could express their grievances, as well as compensation to people on both sides who have suffered.

Saying that peace can't happen without the creation of a viable Palestinian state(which has to be a state that controls its own water supply and is NOT obligated to give up ALL means of defending the Palestinian people against the force of the IDF)is necessary for peace to occur is not the same thing as saying "there could be peace if only".

It takes away nothing from Israel's security and the defense of its right to survive for that state to admit that ordinary Palestinians have, at times, suffered needlessly at its hands. Acknowledging that is necessary to the process of ending the conflict, since we both know that the conflict isn't exclusively the fault of the other Arabs(some of whose states, such as Egypt and Jordan)have openly ended hostilities against Israel and others of which have effectively done so, having taken no aggressive actions against Israel since 1973.) It simply isn't true to continue to raise the canard of the "unrelenting Arab campaign to destroy Israel" since it has, in truth, significantly relented.

What is the harm of admitting these two things:

1)That is isn't reasonable or realistic, and hasn't been since 1967, to expect the Arab world to totally normalize relations with Israel until the Palestinians have gained independence or at least have been put on a clear path to it(since, whatever happened prior to 1967, the Palestinian issue has become the main bone of contention in the dispute)?

2)That it simply isn't true to pretend that the whole conflict is the fault of the "other Arabs" or the Palestinians, but that fault is, in fact, shared by both sides?

Admitting those things, neither of which endangers Israel in the slightest, is the way a grown-up would look at the problem.

And, I don't have "colleagues" here. I speak only for myself. There's no cabal or conspiracy. There's simply people who disagree with you. Surely you can't find it that difficult to accept that a decent, independent-minded person could come to different conclusions about the I/P issue than you do, right?

[shira]

105. The Palestinians will never agree to any reasonable Israeli offer...

Face the facts. You've seen the PMW videos. And now that Hamas has joined with the PA, there's no hope of an agreement between the two sides.

So that leaves Israel with a choice. Either to keep things as they are now, or get out of the W.Bank (or most of it). If the latter happens, you believe that just a few more Israeli concessions after that will result in _______ what exactly? Be specific. Take into consideration those PMW videos when you respond back. Don't disregard them as though they're irrelevant. They happen throughout the mideast as well, not just within Gaza and the W.Bank.

PS,
If you think those Israeli gestures from your last post will end the conflict, then why hasn't the PA stated that? Maybe you should email them and tell them they should admit they'll be happy if Israel does that? Tell them that'll end the conflict. Get back to me and let me know how enthusiastic they are with your brilliant proposal. Maybe they'll say, "of course....now why didn't we think of that? Thanks so much Mr. Burch! Love and kisses from Hamas and the PLO."

[jimmie]

107. That is the most disgusting collection

Of videos I have ever seen.

[shira]

109. Team Palestine never voices any concern WRT all this hateful indoctrination...

...and poisoning of children's minds. Only empty allegations of anti-Palestinian bigotry for daring to expose such hatred. Normal people sensitive to racism would be totally disgusted. They are not. They can't even admit there's a problem that needs to be addressed. It's toxic to the cause or the revolution. Most of them are bigots. Others are truly deluded into thinking all Palestinians (including Hamas) are victims and therefore cannot be racists or bigots themselves.

[Fozzledick]

40. The reason you need to address Hamas being a genocidal totalitarian aggressor

is that you denied the fact if it (with a few gratuitous "gutter-level" insults thrown in at me) and now you're trying to weasel out of explaining if you really believe that. Disingenuous, to put it mildly - or would you prefer "disgusting" as your word-of-the-day?

[Ken Burch]

41. Actually, "disgusting" is King David's word-of-the-day

It's enough to say that Hamas is violent and extremist. Using terms like "genocidal", which is far out of proportion to anything Hamas has ever actually done(and what they have done is bad enough, thank you very much)is an abuse of language.

Hamas is not trying to kill every Israeli. They aren't even trying to kill all the West Bank settlers(though they have killed too many). Genocide refers, specifically, to an attempt to wipe out an entire people. It just doesn't apply here and throwing such a term around here diminishes the suffering of all the groups of people who have been victims of ACTUAL genocides or attempted genocides.

I've made it clear that I don't support Hamas-the furthest I've gone is to argue that it would be necessary to negotiate with them, simply because this conflict can ONLY be ended with negotiations involving all the factions, since none of the factions can be wiped out militarily and excluding any from negotiations will simply guarantee that any that are excluded will keep on fighting-and how does THAT kind of result help anyone?

[Violet_Crumble]

46. 'Genocidal' is also the word of the day...

Pity it's not used with any concept of what the term actually means, and that those prone to doing it are the first to complain if the 'G' word is uttered within a paragraph of the word Israel

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. Ooh, now there's a wonderful way of concealing the truth without *technically* lying...

"Israel has offered the Palestinians their own state free of occupation and settlements TWICE within an 8 year period. "

Well, yes, they've said "have a state on the land that isn't covered by settlements".

Which is not, of course, the same thing as not demanding to be allowed to keep large swathes of settlement, but sounds like it is...

[shira]

89. I'm not concealing any truth...

Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

You're the one here pretending the 1948 armistice lines are borders, when the people at the UN in 1948 said they definitely were not borders.

In addition, Jews in the 1920's were granted their historic homeland west of Jordan (which includes the W.Bank and Gaza). Nothing since then has changed the fact that the WB is part of the Jewish homeland. That makes land swaps perfectly legitimate.

Finally, you should realize you're legitimizing the 1948-67 ethnic cleansing of all Jews in the WB by maintaining it's Arab or Palestinian land and Jews have no rights to it at all, despite having more than a 3000 year uninterrupted history in Judea/Samaria.

[Jefferson23]

15. The Republican response was predictable, and they are consistent.

One of the problems I have with these alleged debates is how the
individual conducting them does not call them out on their bullshit,
no matter the topic.

What I am interested in knowing is what the gentleman Abraham Hassan
thinks about their responses, and if he will still vote Republican.

It was clear imo, the Republican party has no vested interest in appealing
to American Palestinian voters...their reply's to him were disgusting.

[shaayecanaan]

29. i wonder how much sheldon adelson should pay for an outburst like this

After all he was willing to give newt a few million quid for saying the Palestinians were an invented people, something like this ought to be worth a few nickels and dimes.

Perhaps some of the regulars here should chip in as well, they seem to have quite liked it also.

[oberliner]

54. Adelson is supporting Gingrich not Romney

And Gingrich actually spoke out in favor of a Palestinian state, whereas Romney made no such mention.

Also there are only two posters who have expressed any kind of support for those comments from Romney.

I wonder how many of the "regulars" here actually support Obama's position on this topic.

[Ken Burch]

66. OK...how much of a refund should Adelson get from Newt, then?

n/t.

[Ruby the Liberal]

34. I watched that debate, and that was horrifying.

The Palestinian guy asked an honest question and the 4 schlubs on the dais were all but tripping over themselves to paint ALL Palestinians as the sole source of the problem and the root of all evil.

Yeah, they were in Florida, who votes Tuesday, and yeah, Florida has the 3rd largest Jewish population in the US (behind NY and California), but still.

Dude introduced himself as a Republican of Palestinian heritage before asking the question.

It was mortifying, VC. Positively mortifying.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. I didn't see the debate. Do you know if it's available online?

Heh, 'Republican of Palestinian heritage' is so bizarre. I honestly don't get what the Republicans have to offer American Palestinians, and I'm suspecting it's absolutely nothing apart from painting them all as terrorist types

[Ruby the Liberal]

47. Found it. Wasn't as bad as I remembered

I must have been in a mood, so glad you asked so I could give another listen.

That said, I thought they greatly misrepresented what is going on over there in response to this gentleman's question. Hamas is NOT "the Palestinians".

1:28:30 or so to 1:33:00-ish.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. OMG! I don't know if I should be thanking or cursing you for what I saw in the first few minutes!

Three stupid and dangerous morons debating each other over the space of over an hour and a half. The words 'we're not choosing a talk show host!'. The busy graphics and THE BIG VOICES making it sound like we're about to watch some perverted love child of a WWF match and a really bad episode of Jerry Springer.

I'll try watching more than 2:20 of it after my dinner's settled a bit

on edit: Just realised my reaction might look a bit weird to Americans, so I thought I'd post a link to a recent election debate from here so you can see the, uh, low-tech lack of graphics (apart from The Worm) approach I'm used to

&feature=related

[Ruby the Liberal]

64. Oh, the debates are awesome!

The clown car rolls onto the stage and all of the contenders pile out of it. Then they stand behind podiums that make them look like they are each standing in a trash can. Cue LIGHTS! CAMERA! ACTION! and the whole place is swath in red, white, and blue.

Then, for the next 90 minutes, they sling barbs at each other. And they are doing this at the rate of 1-2x a week. Last week had one Monday and one Thursday.

Girl, it is ENDLESSLY entertaining to watch.

I am going to pout when they end up with a candidate, noting that all of the audience catcalling and thirst for blood is a Republican phenomenon. Back when Hillary, John Edwards, President Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden et al were running for the Dem nomination, there was applause, but it was nothing like this freakshow. I think a lot of it has to do with the hyperbolic rhetoric on the airwaves with the likes of RW hate radio and Faux Noise stirring up the masses.

[oberliner]

58. Why would "Republican of Palestinian heritage" be bizarre?

I daresay that there are significant numbers of Palestinian-Americans who are conservative on a variety of issues and would be more likely to support Republicans than Democrats.

In 2000, for example, the Arab-American vote (of which the Palestinian-American vote is a relatively fair-sized subset - about 10 percent or so) voted for Bush over Gore by about 10 percentage points.

Obama fared much better, but there are still significant percentages of Arab-Americans (some of whom, presumably are Palestinian-Americans) who support the Republican party for various reasons.

[Ken Burch]

77. Well, a lot of Arab-Americans, including Palestinian-Americans

Are small business "self-made man" types-in my hometown(Salem, Oregon)my mom often gasses up her car at a gas station convenience store run by Palestinian immigrants-plus they are often socially conservative. So, demographically, there is a logic to Palestinian-Americans being sympathetic to the GOP(if it weren't for the post-2000 Islamophobia/Arabophobia among the U.S. Right, the GOP would probably have a lock on that vote).

And, weirdly enough, in 2000, the Bush-Cheney ticket actually carried the Arab-American(including Palestinian-American)vote.

[oberliner]

50. You are wrong about one thing

You say that "the 4 schlubs on the dais were all but tripping over themselves to paint ALL Palestinians as the sole source of the problem and the root of all evil".

This is definitely not true.

Ron Paul has never said anything like this and in fact consistently presents a very different message that is not even remotely like anything the other three candidates have said.

With respect to this question, he was not given any opportunity for a response.

[Ruby the Liberal]

62. Yes - and neither did Rick Santorum

Sorry - I thought I corrected that when I posted the link.

[oberliner]

65. Rick, I would think, would be in with Romney/Gingrich on the matter

Ron, on the other hand, not so much.

[Ruby the Liberal]

70. From what I have seen, I have no doubt.

[azurnoir]

44. interesting responses to this

seems that there are many in agreement with Mittens and Newt

[oberliner]

56. No it doesn't

I count two.

Post Ron Paul's position on the subject and you will see a lot of folks supporting agreement for that Republicans point of view.

[azurnoir]

72. where are you seeing 2? n/t

[oberliner]

73. In this thread

Two posters seem to be posting comments supportive of those remarks.

Are there others?

[azurnoir]

74. well I wasn't speaking of the thread

wouldn't that be almost the same as an accusation of supporting Republicans?

[oberliner]

75. No it wouldn't

Supporting Republicans would be saying that you hope Romney or Gingrich or Paul beats Obama in the election.

[oberliner]

49. His answer was off the charts

Even Gingrich talked about the importance of creating a Palestinian state in his response.

Romney did not even bother to do that.

Newt said:

"My goal for the Palestinian people would be to live in peace, to live in prosperity, to have the dignity of a state, to have freedom, and they can achieve it any morning they are prepared to say Israel has a right to exist."

This is essentially the same position that President Obama has on the topic.

Romney, on the other hand, had not even any token positive things to say about the Palestinian people.

[Harmony Blue]

59. I agree

Romney's comment was out of touch with reality.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. There is only one side that does not want a two-state solution, and it is not the Palestinians.

If Israel were to offer to withdraw to its own borders and allow a viable Palestinian state, the vast majority (not all) of the Palestinians would jump at the opportunity.

But doing so is not even on the table - both the Israeli government and the majority of the electorate are totally committed to maintaining large swathes of settlement.

[oberliner]

55. That is definitely not true

If the Palestinians were to recognize Israel as Jewish state and accept some one for one territorial swaps with Israel then the vast majority (not all) of the Israelis would jump at the opportunity.

But doing so is not even on the table - both the Palestinian government and the majority of the electorate are totally committed to maintaining the Palestinian Right of Return and refusing to recognize Israel as the Jewish state.

Both the Israeli side and the Palestinian side could take steps that would lead to two states living side by side at peace with one another - neither right now is willing to do so.

Surveys of Israelis and Palestinians show varying degrees of support for this resolution.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. What I said was true, some of what you say is a simple lie.

"If the Palestinians were to recognize Israel as Jewish state and accept some one for one territorial swaps with Israel then the vast majority (not all) of the Israelis would jump at the opportunity. "

With the current Israeli government that's open for debate at best, but more importantly that phrase "some one for one territorial swaps" covers a multitude of sins - the Palestinians would have to give up most of the heart of the West Bank, and all of East Jerusalem, for the Isaeli government to even look twice.



"both the Palestinian government and the majority of the electorate are totally committed to maintaining the Palestinian Right of Return and refusing to recognize Israel as the Jewish state."

This is a shameful, barefaced lie, in need of retraction and apology.

[oberliner]

61. Everything you said was not true and nothing that I said was a lie

You just have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about here.

Maybe read a survey?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. Or look at some election results?

I place very little faith in declared preference compared to revealed preference, especially when the two differ as widely as in this case.


Incidentally, on reflection: apologies for the use of the word "lie" - I think much of what you said was not true, but I have no evidence that you don't honestly believe it (although I find it deeply puzzling that you do, if so).

[shaayecanaan]

67. Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/palestinian-negotiators-jewish-state-papers

"But behind closed doors in November 2007, Erekat told Tzipi Livni, the then Israeli foreign minister and now opposition leader: "If you want to call your state the Jewish state of Israel you can call it what you want," comparing it to Iran and Saudi Arabia's definition of themselves as Islamic or Arab."

[aranthus]

53. Three panderers and a fool.

Not that Romney is entirely wrong. Many Palestinians, including much, if not a majority, of Fatah and all of Hamas, don't really want peace with Israel. They see the Two State Solution as part of a "Phased Plan" for Israel's destruction. Nevertheless, it's pretty obvious who the candidates other than Paul are playing to. It's sad. The Republicans and our country deserve better.

[oberliner]

57. The Palestinian-American Republican was certainly not pandered to by Romney

He didn't even throw him a bone with some lip service about the Palestinian people deserving their own state, as Gingrich did.

[shaayecanaan]

68. I don't think that pandering to the Palestinians has ever been a significant problem

in the American body politic.

[oberliner]

71. Indeed not

But I was shocked to the degree of Romney's apparent disdain towards the questioner.

Gingrich's response seemed a bit more courteous and politic if nothing else.

[aranthus]

92. Romney is not the least bit subtle.

His response was in keeping with his publicly stated position of absolute uncritical support for our ally Israel. The thing is, what he's saying is either a lie (he knows that the US can't be so much in support of any of our allies), or he's an unthinking ignoramus (and he really isn't that). So he's hiding his real position in favor of playing to the Conservative Christian and Jewish Vote. Can you imagine if he were to say some of these things as President? Or if Gingrich were to repeat the "Palestinians are an invented people" line? They are really irresponsible things for a President, or a prospective President, to say. So how could America vote for someone who's hiding from them? And he's probably the best the Republicans have to offer. Not good.

[Jefferson23]

69. Gingrich’s Extremist Anti-Palestinian Stance Follows Millions from Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson

Many analysts say Newt Gingrich’s recent rise in the Republican contest would have been impossible without the backing of one man: multi-billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson and his wife have donated $10 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, which has run a series of ads attacking Gingrich’s opponent Mitt Romney. Gingrich has openly admitted Adelson’s support came down to a single issue: Israel. Gingrich has adopted the most extremist anti-Palestinian stance of the Republican presidential field, calling the Palestinians themselves an "invented" people. We speak with Gal Beckerman of the Jewish Daily Forward and Linda Sarsour of the Arab American Association of New York. [includes rush transcript]

JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to the issue of money and politics. Over the past two weeks, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary and has surged in the national polls. Many analysts say Gingrich’s rise would not have been possible without the backing of one man: multi-billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. With a net worth of over $20 billion, he is the world’s 16th richest person, according to Forbes.

Ahead of the South Carolina primary, Adelson donated $5 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, which ran a series of ads attacking Gingrich’s opponent Mitt Romney. On Monday, it was revealed his wife, Miriam Adelson, gave another $5 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC. Under the nation’s campaign finance laws, the Adelsons could give the super PAC an unlimited amount of money in the coming months.

In a recent interview with Ted Koppel on NBC, Newt Gingrich was asked about why the Adelsons would give so much money. Gingrich admitted it came down to a single issue: Israel.

TED KOPPEL: But what do these multi-millionaires expect?

NEWT GINGRICH: They want—they want—they want—

TED KOPPEL: When you give someone five million bucks—

NEWT GINGRICH: They want their candidate to win.

TED KOPPEL: But there has to be a "so what" at the end of that. So, if you win, what does Adelson get out of it?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, he knows I’m very pro-Israel. And that’s the central value of his life. I mean, he is very worried that Israel is going to not survive.

AMY GOODMAN: Sheldon Adelson is the owner of Israel’s largest daily newspaper, a financial supporter of Birthright Israel, and a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Adelson has also supported the Clarion Fund, which produced The Third Jihad film, which we just discussed.

The Washington Post reports Adelson and Gingrich met when Gingrich was House speaker and Adelson was lobbying to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Gingrich raised this very issue at last night’s debate when he was questioned about his past claims that the Palestinians are an "invented" people.

in full: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/27/gingrichs_extremist_anti_palestinian_stance_follows

[oberliner]

76. Other way around

Adelson likes where Gingrich stands on Israel - so he gives him a ton of money in the hopes that he will become president.

If he loses the primary, he will give Romney money (most likely via the Republican party), because he likes Romney's position on the subject better than Obama's.

Remove Adelson from the equation and Gingrich would still be spouting the same line about Israel.

Gets him more support in the fundamentalist Christian community - which is most Republicans.

[Jefferson23]

78. The influence came from Adelson first, Gingrich's position changed from that point:

snip* One way to test how this generosity might have influenced the always hardline Gingrich is how these views hardened even more after he climbed aboard the Adelson gravy train, who has so far donated nearly $13 million to Gingrich’s two White House-tied PACS, a record in American politics. In the summer of 2005, a year before Gingrich founded American Solutions with Adelson as the initial donor, the ex-speaker candidate penned a treatise for a right-wing U.S. publication called the Middle East Quarterly. Compared to the views he expresses now, which are a full-blown echo of Adelson’s, the Gingrich of six years ago was a moderate, endorsing Obama-like policies he now condemns.

Contrary to Gingrich’s recent claim that the Palestinians are an “invented people” that “had a chance to go many places,” his 2005 article urged the “Palestinian diaspora” to invest in “their ancestral lands,” and even urged Congress to “establish a program of economic aid for the Palestinians to match the aid the U.S. government provides Israel.” The Palestinians were “among the most international and most advanced people in the Arab world,” Gingrich wrote while still a fellow at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/18/is-gingrich-s-hard-line-on-palestine-paid-for-by-sheldon-adelson.html

[oberliner]

79. No it didn't

Newt's position is the same now as it was then.

Here's what Newt said at the debate a few days ago:

"My goal for the Palestinian people would be to live in peace, to live in prosperity, to have the dignity of a state, to have freedom, and they can achieve it any morning they are prepared to say Israel has a right to exist."

This is consistent with what he has said since before 2005, and is, in fact, a more pro-Palestinian position than the one he held in the 90's when he spoke out against the Clinton administrations peace overtures.

In 1998, Gingrich accused Madeline Albright of behaving as "an agent for the Palestinians" for supporting peace negotiations.

He was completely opposed throughout the 1990's to any kind of peace process that President Clinton attempted that involved any recognition of a Palestinian state.

This was long before Adelson had anything to do with any of his campaigns.

[Jefferson23]

80. In your opinion it did not..the OP includes documents of what he said in his position papers.

Adeleson's influence is clear enough. The article isn't suggesting he was on par
with Clinton at the time nor with Albright...but back then similar to Obama's position currently.
An "invented people" was not a line he was selling back then...not even close.

He opposed anything Clinton wanted..no shocker there, he resigned in 1999,
the OP focuses on what he wrote once out of office.

The articles and discussions on this tracked this well enough, buying influence
in U.S. politics is nothing new.

[oberliner]

84. See my post below

Look at his remarks and positions vis-a-vis the Palestinians in the 1990's.

I'm not sure you can argue that "Invented People" is particularly worse than "Nazi-like".

He also vehemently supported moving the embassy to Jerusalem at the time (as he does today).

I'll see if I can find more articles from 1997/1998 that illustrate his position back then.

[shaayecanaan]

82. He's clearly angling for donations, though...

Romney Touts Israel to NYC Donors

But two undecided voters who attended the fundraiser because of their affiliation with the pro-Israel group NORPAC said that there were "several hundred people" in the audience and that Romney spoke at length about Israel, and his unwavering support for it. According to them, he didn't mention his chief rival for the Republican nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, at all, focusing his fire on President Obama. Romney struck them both as electable—and they said he has got their vote. Another man said he was "very funny", citing Romney's stump speech line about not inhaling politics.

Romney's pro-Israel appeal came exactly one week after Perry gave an extremely pro-Israel—and extremely public—speech in Manhattan, telling supporters that Obama "has put Israel in a position of weakness and taken away their flexibility to offer concessions as part of the negotiation process." He also pledged to visit the country in the coming months.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/mitt-romney-highlights-support-for-israel-on-fundraising-tour-of-new-york-20110926

[oberliner]

81. Gingrich accused Palestinians of "Nazi-like behavior" in 1997 (pre-Adelson)

Here are some Gingrich quotes from the pre-Adelson 1990's

From 1997:

House Speaker Newt Gingrich accused Palestinians of Nazilike behavior Tuesday and called on Yasser Arafat to condemn and stop the killing of Arabs who sell land to Jews.

Gingrich, in a rare House floor speech in support of an amendment, outlined reports of killings and threats resulting from land deals and said, “This is the kind of action we identify with Nazis. This is the kind of racist activity that this planet holds to be reprehensible and unacceptable.

“Mr. Arafat, you owe it to the world to stop this kind of killing, to protect people engaged in decent commerce,” the speaker said.

Gingrich spoke in support of an amendment to foreign affairs legislation calling for an end to U.S. support for the Palestinian Authority, which passed on a voice vote.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1997/jun/11/gingrich-decries-palestinian-killings/

From 1998:

From 1998:

In a CNN interview Gingrich also blasted the Palestinian Authority, saying it systematically incited violence among its followers and harming the Middle East peace process.

"No Palestinian official should talk about or threaten bloodshed, but yet it is a routine pattern in this region for the Palestinian Authority to in effect, incite violence. I think it is totally wrong, and the United States frankly should condemn it routinely and point out to the world who it is who is suggesting violence," Gingrich said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Palestinian negotiator Hassan Asfour denounced Gingrich's four-day trip as a show of "hostility towards Arabs and Palestinians and not a bridge of peace."

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1998/05/12501

[Jefferson23]

83. You seem to think that the earlier OP was suggesting Gingrich

was having a love fest with the Palestinians before Adelson came along.

The information and time line indicates a change..more right..not left to far wacko right.

Politicians are influenced by money they receive..nothing new.

on edit to add: Keep in mind he was directing those inflammatory statements
to Palestinian leaders..not the people.

[oberliner]

85. "Nazi-like" is more than just not having a love fest

The information and time line may indeed indicate a change, but it's not more right. If anything it is slightly more left.

Newt has publicly expressed a desire for a Palestinian state.

He said that his goal for the Palestinian people was for them to have freedom, prosperity, and the dignity of a state.

This was just a few days ago, in Florida.

[Jefferson23]

86. Slightly more left? Well, we disagree and I do not see support for

your claim, not at all. One would need to reconcile what he wrote
out of office not only his opposition to what Clinton wanted for political
purposes.

snip* Gingrich’s repudiation of his 2005 op-ed on American settlement policy, however, was even more striking. Asked in a December radio interview about his position about the right of Jewish settlers to live “in Judea and Samaria” (the term favored on the Israeli right for the West Bank), Gingrich now says: “I do not oppose any development in the Israeli-occupied areas, because I think that’s part of the negotiating process. As long as the Palestinians are waging war on Israel, they are in no position to complain about developments.” Why would the Israelis, Gingrich asked, “slow down in maximizing their net bargaining advantage?”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/18/is-gingrich-s-hard-line-on-palestine-paid-for-by-sheldon-adelson.html

Adelson made an investment and it did not begin in 2005:

GAL BECKERMAN: Well, he supports—the relationship is really symbiotic, in a way. It developed, as you said, in the mid-'90s over issues of union busting. Adelson wanted some help; Gingrich was able to offer it. And it developed as time went on. It seems to have helped kind of in Gingrich's evolution in terms of his pro-Israel stance. Wayne Barrett recently reported in The Daily Beast that, you know, if you look at what Gingrich was saying about Palestinians and Israel in 2005, even, as recently as 2005, it was kind of a different line. He was talking about investing in their ancestral lands. He was really speaking a much different language. This is now changed. You won’t hear Gingrich saying anything like that anymore. And it’s not—you know, one can’t draw a direct causal link, you know, find the telephone call in which Adelson said, you know, "I want you to say this." But it’s not hard to imagine that if your political life depends on a man who has very extreme-right views when it comes to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, that you’re going to hear that same language come out of that candidate’s mouth.

[oberliner]

87. If you can stomach it, check out the Rumsfeld papers

You can get a good glimpse into Newt's views on the Palestinians circa 2003 (pre-Adelson).

This was in a private memo that he wrote directly to Rumsfeld, not something for public consumption.

If you do a search for Gingrich, you can download the pdf:

http://www.rumsfeld.com/

Again, I would encourage you to consider doing your own research on this matter rather than relying on this one article from The Daily Beast that you keep posting excerpts from.

There is a lot of information out there - if you are open to other possible conclusions, and if you think it's worth the effort, you might end up changing your mind.

[Jefferson23]

88. There are two OP's posted here, one embedded within the other,

if you read them. The relationship while he was in office began in the 90's btw,
this information is posted in the first OP I offered in this thread.

I would encourage you to reconcile his writings while out of office, and not running for office.

Influencing a politician with money is nothing new.

[AnOhioan]

106. Neither does Israel

[Liora24]

108. As much as I hate to admit it, Romney is correct

I hate it when Republicans are correct, but it is the truth. The Hamas Charter calls for the distruction of Israel.

Here is just two of the examples of what the Palestinians are teaching their children. Does this sound like a people who want peace?

I am not Israeli but I've been to Israel three times. Every missile which flew over our heads, every rock which was thrown, every dirty look on the street from the Palestinians, whether in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem was a reminder that there were people that wanted the Israelis dead just for being Jewish.