Romney's Palestine gaffe today

[Travis]

He correctly identified the major problem in reaching a lasting middle east peace agreement. And that is a disqualification?

Well since I think he is dead wrong on this it certainly is a disqualification for me.

Are you suggesting that politicians should run for office on a platform of comforting lies and we should vote for them hoping that they do indeed know the truth but it would have been injudicious for them to have informed us?

There is a difference between comforting lies and radical opinions. What he voiced was a radical (and rather uninformed) opinion that there is no Palestinian that wants peace.

If you want to vote for someone that holds a "no one wants peace so lets just do nothing but WAR" stance on foreign affairs that would be your right. I have the right to view it as reactionary and likely to cause huge problems.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not true that all Palestinians are opposed to the establishment of peace.

True. Just the ones actually in charge.

 

[WildCat]

You think Palestinians are genetically predisposed to dislike peace? Or wouldn't you say that such sweeping statements are at the very least painting with too broad a brush?

I know 100% for certain that many Palestinians want peace and are even committed to peaceful means of establishing their own state.

I certainly don't claim there aren't also violent Palestinians, even criminal Palestinians. There are also those--perhaps the majority-- who want to establish peace but feel their violent acts are justified.

So Romney's statement given in the OP is certainly not accurate.

The problem is that many Palestinians define "peace" as the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of the Jews. Certainly that is the position of Hamas, which has no small level of support among Palestinians.

So you could say they have a desire for peace, but not by the usual definition.

 

[GlennB]

The problem is that many Palestinians define "peace" as the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of the Jews. Certainly that is the position of Hamas, which has no small level of support among Palestinians.

So you could say they have a desire for peace, but not by the usual definition.

Which misses the point of the 'gaffe' verdict. Whether Angela Merkel stinks or not, or whether she smells worse than David Cameron, is neither here nor there. The gaffe resides in the fact that he allowed himself to be recorded making the judgement.

If, though, his objective was to alienate Palestinians from future US-supported negotiations over the Israel-Palestine issue then, I suppose, he did a good job.

Basically the man's mouth is out of control.

 

[Giz]

There is a difference between comforting lies and radical opinions. What he voiced was a radical (and rather uninformed) opinion that there is no Palestinian that wants peace.

Did he say the "absolutely not a single Palestinian wants peace. Not a single one. No Sir." Or was it maybe a "Palestinians [in general] don't want [an acceptable - i.e. both sides survive] peace".

Hmmm?

If you want to vote for someone that holds a "no one wants peace so lets just do nothing but WAR" stance on foreign affairs that would be your right. I have the right to view it as reactionary and likely to cause huge problems.

What if the people you are negotiating with absolutely don't want peace and are implacably committed to the destruction of Israel? (No, not ALL Palestinians but certainly Hamas and according to a lot of opinion polls a majority of Palestinians).

Shouldn't we think about what that means before we negotiate? (Not that we can't negotiate, just that we shouldn't wear rose-tinted glasses about what is possible and what Hamas promises are worth)

 

[Giz]

Which misses the point of the 'gaffe' verdict. Whether Angela Merkel stinks or not, or whether she smells worse than David Cameron, is neither here nor there. The gaffe resides in the fact that he allowed himself to be recorded making the judgement.

If it is true, and is material (which argueably an individuals BO is not) (but wanting to genocide might be) then it might be of interest to voters in a democracy to be able to see if candidates can make accurate foreign policy judgements.

If, though, his objective was to alienate Palestinians from future US-supported negotiations over the Israel-Palestine issue then, I suppose, he did a good job.

Hahahahha - wait, serious? Palestinians are against a reasonable peace, and recognizing that fact will supposedly alienate them for agreeing to a reasonable peace?! Newsflash - they are already alienated (and not because of the West or Israel but mainly because of their screwed up victim mentality/superiority complex/religious mania).

Basically the man's mouth is out of control.

A politician speaking uncomfortable truths? My worldview is crumbling - gag that man!!!

 

[Ziggurat]

The gaffe resides in the fact that he allowed himself to be recorded making the judgement.

It's a gaffe to not catch every hidden camera that might be present?

That's a rather strange definition of gaffe. It's also a rather impossible standard to hold him to. Either he was wrong to say it, or he wasn't. Whether or not he was recorded doing so is pretty secondary to that. And I don't think he was wrong to say it, because it's the truth. And I don't think we lose anything by speaking that truth on that. God knows we've gained nothing by trying to maintain the lie.

 

[Tricky]

It's a gaffe to not catch every hidden camera that might be present?

No, not really. It's more like an open-mike blunder, but with the mike open for a long long time. It is much more revealing and damning than a mere gaffe.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, not really. It's more like an open-mike blunder, but with the mike open for a long long time. It is much more revealing and damning than a mere gaffe.

Is it really damning? Or just damaging? Because the two aren't actually the same.

Obama is trying to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to him. And you can be damned sure that he's saying stuff that would also be damaging if it went public. Hell, he already has. Remember that whole bitter clingers thing from 2008?

 

[Tricky]

Is it really damning? Or just damaging? Because the two aren't actually the same.

Damning in my opinion, because I think it shows that he is not qualified to handle complex diplomatic relations. Can you imagine him ever trying to moderate peace talks like Carter did? No, he's ruined that. But of course, people who have been observing Romney are not surprised. He's had his nose so far up Israel's ass, he could give a detailed description of their pancreas. But to the casual political observer, it is a quick lesson in how bad Romney is at diplomacy. That's damning, IMO.

Obama is trying to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to him. And you can be damned sure that he's saying stuff that would also be damaging if it went public. Hell, he already has. Remember that whole bitter clingers thing from 2008?

Yes, and it was nothing then. It never indicated that he would be bad at domestic policy. It hardly made a ripple, and certainly didn't have any noticible effect on the election.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

He correctly identified the major problem in reaching a lasting middle east peace agreement.

I don't think so.

While I will admit that there are factions that don't want peace, (largely for self serving reasons) there are many more that do.

Such sweeping generalizations by Romney are just plain ignorant.

 

[Travis]

Did he say the "absolutely not a single Palestinian wants peace. Not a single one. No Sir." Or was it maybe a "Palestinians [in general] don't want [an acceptable - i.e. both sides survive] peace".

Hmmm?



What if the people you are negotiating with absolutely don't want peace and are implacably committed to the destruction of Israel? (No, not ALL Palestinians but certainly Hamas and according to a lot of opinion polls a majority of Palestinians).

Shouldn't we think about what that means before we negotiate? (Not that we can't negotiate, just that we shouldn't wear rose-tinted glasses about what is possible and what Hamas promises are worth)

*Mental note: do not let Giz or Romney moderate peace talks in the Middle East*

 

[Ziggurat]

Damning in my opinion, because I think it shows that he is not qualified to handle complex diplomatic relations. Can you imagine him ever trying to moderated peace talks like Carter did? No, he's ruined that. But of course, people who have been observing Romney are not surprised. He's had his nose so far up Israel's ass, he could give a detailed description of their pancreas. But to the casual political observer, it is a quick lesson in how bad Romney is at diplomacy. That's damning, IMO.

You're making one of two assumptions, both of which I think are false. The first possible assumption is that we have someone we can actually negotiate a peace with right now. And I simply do not think that is true. The second possible assumption is that we need to be "diplomatic" with people whom we cannot make peace with. I don't believe that either. But without one of those two assumptions, the motive to be "diplomatic" evaporates. That Romney isn't acting like Carter (not the yard stick I'd pick) in this particular case doesn't mean he can't be diplomatic when it's called for. But I don't think it's called for here. The "peace process" is, at the moment, a total farce. And it's about time we admitted it.

 

[Tricky]

You're making one of two assumptions, both of which I think are false. The first possible assumption is that we have someone we can actually negotiate a peace with right now. And I simply do not think that is true.

Whether it is true or not, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to keep hostilities down. Right now, hostilities are not nearly as high as I've seen them in the past, at least, not hostilities against Israel. I'm not saying Obama has a big role in this, but sometimes the best thing you can do is to stay on the sidelines and try to be impartial, and Romney has made it clear he can't do that.

The second possible assumption is that we need to be "diplomatic" with people whom we cannot make peace with. I don't believe that either.

Then you recommend war? Because that's the alternative to diplomacy.

But without one of those two assumptions, the motive to be "diplomatic" evaporates. That Romney isn't acting like Carter (not the yard stick I'd pick) in this particular case doesn't mean he can't be diplomatic when it's called for. But I don't think it's called for here. The "peace process" is, at the moment, a total farce. And it's about time we admitted it.

Right now the greatest danger to peace is that Israel will start a war with Iraq and expect the US to follow them. Romney has hinted that he would do so without a blink, (again, IMO).

And I don't care if you like Carter as an example or not, he mediated an agreement between Sadat and Begin that lasted quite a few years. That was an accomplishment that Romney has shown himself to be incapable of.

 

[AlBell]

Unfortunately, the Camp Davis Accords Egypt-Israel appear to be breeched by Egyptian islamofascists rearming the Sinai.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whether it is true or not, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to keep hostilities down.

You think what Romney said will have any effect on hostilities? Sorry, that's just not credible.

Right now, hostilities are not nearly as high as I've seen them in the past, at least, not hostilities against Israel.

Entirely due to events and circumstances other than what our President, or Romney, is saying about negotiations.

I'm not saying Obama has a big role in this, but sometimes the best thing you can do is to stay on the sidelines and try to be impartial, and Romney has made it clear he can't do that.

Why should we be impartial? One side is a democracy and is our ally. The other side is hostile to us, to our values, and to our interests, and embraces terrorism. We have no reason to be impartial. We have no reason to even pretend to be impartial. We have a clear interest to favor one side. There's no point in pretending otherwise, and anyways, nobody actually believes that we don't.

Then you recommend war? Because that's the alternative to diplomacy.

Nice straw man. But whether or not there is war between Israel and the Palestinians depends upon what the Palestinians decide, not what we decide. And the whole point is that they're not actually interested in diplomacy right now. If they are dissuaded from war, it won't be because of what the US President says.

Right now the greatest danger to peace is that Israel will start a war with Iraq and expect the US to follow them. Romney has hinted that he would do so without a blink, (again, IMO).

We weren't talking about Iran (and I can only presume you meant Iran or the above becomes complete nonsense). But it's funny that you brought that up, because Carter's handling of Iran was disastrous.

And I don't care if you like Carter as an example or not, he mediated an agreement between Sadat and Begin that lasted quite a few years. That was an accomplishment that Romney has shown himself to be incapable of.

Carter could negotiate a peace between Sadat and Begin because both men wanted it. You cannot achieve peace between parties if one of them doesn't want it. Pretending otherwise will make no difference. And Romney's decision not to pretend otherwise says nothing about what he could do in a case where both parties did want it. That's the point on which your entire argument fails.

 

[WildCat]

Then you recommend war? Because that's the alternative to diplomacy.

That's actually a false dichotomy.

 

[Travis]

That's actually a false dichotomy.

True. The third option is head-in-the-sand isolationism.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You think Palestinians are genetically predisposed to dislike peace?

Well...they are Muslim, after all....and they have brownish skin.

 

[Giz]

True. The third option is head-in-the-sand isolationism.

Yeah, cause all foreign policy is either:

Pretending the other guys are swell (when they are jerks), or
Head in sand isolationism, or
War.


How about good ol' fashioned moral clarity?

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
- Ronald Reagen

There are many people in the world who really don't understand-or say they don't-what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin!
- JFK