Romney's Palestine gaffe today

[Alferd_Packer]

How about good ol' fashioned moral clarity?

From Mitt Romney?

The man has never demonstrated moral clarity in his business dealings.

 

[MattusMaximus]

 

[Giz]

From Mitt Romney?

The man has never demonstrated moral clarity in his business dealings.

Well, he just did on Israel/Palestine - and it appeared that the democratic party wasn't ready for that much reality...

 

[not_so_new]

I see only two options here....

1. Romney thought his comments would somehow help relations in the region.

2. Romney thought his comments would help his election efforts by getting American Jews to vote for him.

I don't see how Romney's comments could actually help with relations between Palestine and Israel so I think his words should be taken as typical self serving political pandering. This isn't a "gaffe" in my eyes, it was said intentionally with a specific audience in mind and that audience is right here in the U.S.

Generally speaking I feel political pandering (by both parties) should be ignored. This case however, is a little different. Romney is stirring the pot in a region where tensions are high and people's lives could be at stake only for his own political aspirations.

So while I don't believe this is a "gaffe" at all, I do think it is in very bad form. Additionally, I feel this comment either shows a distinct lack of sophistication in relation to delicate foreign diplomacy issues or it sheds additional light on Romney's lack of concern for anything other than his own self interests.

 

[Giz]

I don't see how Romney's comments could actually help with relations between Palestine and Israel so I think his words should be taken as typical self serving political pandering.

Sigh.

It's not a question of "would this particular soundbite pour oil on the troubled waters of the middle east", it just showed that he correctly understood the main obstacle to a lasting peace.

Having correctly understood the situation, one can try to come up with a solution or simply try to prevent it getting worse. If one refuses to understand something, how can you hope to deal with it intelligently?

 

[R.Mackey]

Sigh.

It's not a question of "would this particular soundbite pour oil on the troubled waters of the middle east", it just showed that he correctly understood the main obstacle to a lasting peace.

Having correctly understood the situation, one can try to come up with a solution or simply try to prevent it getting worse. If one refuses to understand something, how can you hope to deal with it intelligently?

He "correctly understands" nothing.

Look, I may not know the answer to the Palestinian Peace Process. I may not have a clue, in fact. But I know for damn sure the way forward is not to throw up your hands and say it can't be done, blaming one of the parties for being uninterested. Especially coming from a confirmed dilettante like Romney.

This is the same kind of hare-brained thinking that gave us UN Ambassador Bolton. It's not constructive. It's the hallmark of an inveterate chickenhawk. That, frankly, is the last thing we need.

 

[Giz]

He "correctly understands" nothing.

Look, I may not know the answer to the Palestinian Peace Process. I may not have a clue, in fact. But I know for damn sure the way forward is not to throw up your hands and say it can't be done, blaming one of the parties for being uninterested. Especially coming from a confirmed dilettante like Romney.

This is the same kind of hare-brained thinking that gave us UN Ambassador Bolton. It's not constructive. It's the hallmark of an inveterate chickenhawk. That, frankly, is the last thing we need.

If one side isn't interested in peace, then there will not be a stable peace.

If we understand that Hamas et al don't want peace, then we can look at what needs to change so that we can have peace or how to contain them so that it doesn't get out of control.

If we willfully refuse to identify the problem, then we doom our efforts at a solution to failure.

Your way is the way of futility. And unending bloodshed.

 

[WildCat]

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

There's other options as well. For example, do nothing. Basically a continuation of what Obama is doing now, they've made little effort to do anything since the Mitchell talks broke down early last year.

A big problem is there is no one who can speak for the Palestinians at the moment. The government is fractured and split between 2 territories. And Hamas, the de facto government in Gaza, has no interest whatsoever in anything that doesn't involve destroying Israel and killing the Jews.

 

[not_so_new]

Sigh.

It's not a question of "would this particular soundbite pour oil on the troubled waters of the middle east", it just showed that he correctly understood the main obstacle to a lasting peace.

Having correctly understood the situation, one can try to come up with a solution or simply try to prevent it getting worse. If one refuses to understand something, how can you hope to deal with it intelligently?

There are things that we know and say and there are things we know and don't say. Knowing the difference between each tactic and when to switch from one to the other is the whole point of diplomacy in the first place.

The negotiator between two parties may have a very good idea that one party is holding up the process but actually saying so out loud is a surefire way to cause that party to feel threatened and more obstinate. This is true of any negotiation.

In fact, it is often the reason why people on the Internet become more entrenched in their own opinions even when they are shown evidence to the contrary. Posters are often called out on forums such as this and they feel the need to defend their stance instead of rationally evaluating their positions based on new evidence or differing viewpoints.

We are all guilty of this (myself included). This is true for the Palestinians as well and it is exactly the reason why Romney shouldn't have said what he said. We all KNOW the Palestinian stance is a good part of the problem (I will concede that their stance may make up a larger portion of the problem) but saying so only entrenches that stance which is counter to our objectives in the region.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The problem is that many Palestinians define "peace" as the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of the Jews.

I think you are factually wrong on this point. I doubt if any Palestinians define "peace" that way. That might be what some (relatively few) want, but I doubt that that's how even they define the word "peace".

But that's really beside the point.

What Romney said is factually not true. There are indeed many Palestinians who would like to establish peace. And again, I know 100% for sure that there are even some Palestinians committed to non-violent means to achieve their aims. So Romney is simply wrong.

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

I doubt it would be true if you say that, though.

I think instead the majority of Palestinians desire peace but also justify acts of violence as "defense"--pretty much the same way other people do.

But what Romney said was a broad sweeping statement about all Palestinians; and it's false.

 

[Ziggurat]

He "correctly understands" nothing.

Look, I may not know the answer to the Palestinian Peace Process. I may not have a clue, in fact. But I know for damn sure the way forward is not to throw up your hands and say it can't be done, blaming one of the parties for being uninterested. Especially coming from a confirmed dilettante like Romney.

You admit that you don't know what will work. So how can you know that anything will work? And if nothing will work right now (and decades of failure suggest that's the case), how is not working because we're not trying any different from not working even though we're trying? I mean, aside from the fact that the former is easier, which, frankly, is something to recommend it.

I'm sure you've heard the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Perhaps it's time to try some sanity in our dealings with the Palestinians.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sigh.

It's not a question of "would this particular soundbite pour oil on the troubled waters of the middle east", it just showed that he correctly understood the main obstacle to a lasting peace.

No it doesn't. It shows that Romney either believes or is at least willing to say a falsehood about Palestinians. If anything, his broad sweeping statement makes me think he has a poor grasp of obstacles to peace.

 

[R.Mackey]

If one side isn't interested in peace, then there will not be a stable peace.

If we understand that Hamas et al don't want peace, then we can look at what needs to change so that we can have peace or how to contain them so that it doesn't get out of control.

If we willfully refuse to identify the problem, then we doom our efforts at a solution to failure.

Your way is the way of futility. And unending bloodshed.

Yes, "If" we understood that.

Hamas != Palestine, and stating carte blanche that they don't want peace is deliberately obtuse.

In actual fact, the situation is far more complicated. Being engaged may not work. Refusing to engage, and labelling others based on such a facile summarization of the problem, will not work.

It would be more correct to state that Republicans don't want peace in the Middle East. And accordingly, if we refuse to identify the problem -- that the hard religious right dogma of "No Apologies" and "Axis of Evil' and "Muslims are Bad" is one of many solvable roadblocks -- then we do indeed doom ourselves to failure.

 

[Ziggurat]

What Romney said is factually not true. There are indeed many Palestinians who would like to establish peace. And again, I know 100% for sure that there are even some Palestinians committed to non-violent means to achieve their aims. So Romney is simply wrong.

When you speak generically about a large group of people, it's generally understood that you may not be speaking about every single one of them. The accepted meaning is that what you say applies to the people who make the decisions that matter.

No matter how many Palestinians there are who want peace, the ones that matter, the ones who actually hold the power in their hands to make that call, don't want peace. Again, maybe not every single one, but overall, the ones making the decisions have time and time again chosen conflict over peace.

 

[R.Mackey]

You admit that you don't know what will work. So how can you know that anything will work? And if nothing will work right now (and decades of failure suggest that's the case), how is not working because we're not trying any different from not working even though we're trying? I mean, aside from the fact that the former is easier, which, frankly, is something to recommend it.

Most pathetic excuse for diplomatic retreat I've ever seen.

"It's Easier" is not a compelling political doctrine.

 

[Ziggurat]

Most pathetic excuse for diplomatic retreat I've ever seen.

"It's Easier" is not a compelling political doctrine.

You left of a rather important part of the argument. That's dishonest.

 

[Virus]

Of course they don't want peace. A terrorist organization with an explicitly genocidal agenda won a landslide victory.

The few people who try to work for peace with Israel get branded traitors and killed.

 

[R.Mackey]

You left of a rather important part of the argument. That's dishonest.

What I left off was your arbitrary and incorrect equivocation of past results as uniform failure. Also known as "special pleading."

You're entitled to your own opinions, backwards though they may be, but not your own facts. If anything I was charitable to your "argument."

 

[angrysoba]

Of course they don't want peace. A terrorist organization with an explicitly genocidal agenda won a landslide victory.

The few people who try to work for peace with Israel get branded traitors and killed.

Unfortunately that also happens among Israelis too.

 

[angrysoba]

If we understand that Hamas et al don't want peace, then we can look at what needs to change so that we can have peace or how to contain them so that it doesn't get out of control.

If it were true that Hamas = Teh Palestinionz then maybe Romney's crass generalization might have a ring of truth to it. But it isn't and it doesn't.