Romney: What He Knows About Palestine That Bush and Rice Would Not Acknowledge

September 20, 2012


One of the most refreshing pieces of news in a long time in the U.S. is that Mitt Romney clearly understands that a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine will never happen. Why? Because Palestine will not accept Israel’s right to exist. It’s that simple. George Bush would not acknowledge that fact. Condoleeza Rice wouldn’t acknowledge the fact. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas can fix the problem – not the U.S., not Russia, not the Arab League.

Mitt Romney

The website Mother Jones released a recording of Romney’s remarks made at a private fundraiser. Jimmy Carter’s grandson with the assistance of Mother Jones comumnist, David Corn, secretly recorded the event.
According to M-Jones, Romney said this:

“I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there’s just no way.”
[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”

Then the Leftist website went on to translate:

Romney was indicating he did not believe in the peace process and, as president, would aim to postpone significant action

If Mother Jones can translate, so can I. Romney didn’t “indicate,” he would postpone significant action, he acknowledged there would be no significant action for a two-state solution without the Palestinian Authority and Hamas accepting Israel’s right to exist. The U.S. cannot make it happen, nor Russia.
There would have been a two-state solution years ago, had the various governing Palestinian factions simply acknowledged Israel’s right to exist as a people. That’s what Israel has asked for to get final talks moving, and they have asked for it for years. Palestinian Charters and their versions of a Constitution call for the extermination of Israel. Israel wants the language removed, and Palestine has refused.
Jihad Watch May 31, 2011:

Whereas Hamas openly denies Israel’s right to exist in both English and Arabic, the PA professes in English before the international community to have recognized Israel’s right to exist. As documented by Palestinian Media Watch, when addressing its own people in Arabic, the PA – like Hamas – completely denies Israel’s right to exist.

In the same JihadWatch article linked above, long before the movie 2016: Obama’s America came out, Robert Spencer documents that the Palestinian Authority considers Jews and the Nation of Israel  colonialists, and having no connection to the land. As D’Souza in 2016 clearly demonstrated: colonialism is at the bottom of Obama’s agenda. Remember Obama Senior’s close friend, saying during an interview with D’Souza, that Senior ‘hated’ colonialism and the friend still ‘hates’ it today – he spit the words out and you could feel the deep-seeded emotion behind his hate. 2016 shows the former colonized areas of the world and the help Obama has given them, specifically, while denying America’s own interests. Then there’s the Churchill bust that was out of the White House immediately upon Obama’s arrival there. I believe D’Souza was spot-on.

“The Zionists must acknowledge publicly, in front of the world, that the Jews have no connection to the Palestinian Arab land, upon whose ruins arose the colonialist settler Zionist plan that settles and expels, represented by the Israeli apartheid state. That which occurred two thousand years ago (i.e., the Jewish/Israeli presence in the land), assuming that it is true, represents in the book of history nothing more than invention and falsification and a coarse and crude form of colonialism.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 27, 2011]

A two-state solution will never happen until and unless Palestine acknowledges Israel’s right to exist. George W. Bush had to know this, yet he continued with his two-state talks that he surely knew would disappoint time after time. I don’t know what Condi Rice actually understood about the region and history, but her stern push for Israel to bow without being recognized is unforgivable.
Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2009, stated again, he was open to a two-state solution:
In “a very good meeting” that lasted 79 minutes, Netanyahu said, he and Obama discussed “our quest for peace with the Palestinians.” And during that meeting, he added, “I outlined my vision of a demilitarized Palestinian state” that would recognize “the Jewish state.”…
“The problem we face is to make sure that doesn’t repeat itself,” he said. Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was “step one,” its evacuation from Gaza was “step two,” and the country “cannot afford step 3.”
In his remark about Jerusalem, made in response to a question from the audience, the Israeli leader said, “Everyone knows that there are Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem that under any peace plan will remain where they are.”
That implied that other neighborhoods of Jerusalem may not remain “where they are” and could become part of an eventual Palestinian state, Uriel Hellman of the JTA reported. The JTA interpreted the remark as “a hint that that his government’s insistence on Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem might not be ironclad.” Source
Israel Matzav March 2012:

The latest round of rocket fire from Gaza underscored just how ill-considered it would be to relinquish more land to the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. The recent Harvard one-state conference demonstrated how clinging to an unfeasible formula has merely generated the opportunity to promote even more menacing alternatives.

For whatever the final contours of a putative Palestinian state, it would entail a frontier of at least 300 kilometers – approximately six times longer than the Gaza front – much of which would be adjacent to Israel’s most populous urban centers, from the environs of Haifa in the north to Beersheba and beyond in the south. (Significantly, Beersheba is much closer to the pre-1967 border of the “West Bank” than it is to the Gaza Strip).
Moreover, unlike in Gaza, a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria would reduce Israel’s width in its most populous areas to a minuscule 11-25 km. – roughly the distance from Beverly Hills to Malibu along Sunset Boulevard.
Even more important than geographic expanse – or the lack thereof – is topographical structure. Unlike the flat Gaza Strip, the limestone hills that comprise the “West Bank” dominate the urbanized Coastal Plain, together with much of Israel’s vital infrastructure, its only international airport, vital centers of civilian government and military command – and 80 percent of its population and commercial activity. ~ Martin Sherman

In 2007, The Arab League endorsed recognizing Israel. Hamas did not.

The team of international peace brokers – the United States, United Nations, Russia and the European Union – has demanded that the PA government recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previously signed peace agreements in order to lift the sanctions imposed in the wake of the 2006 Hamas election victory.
“We are demanding that the government meet these three conditions,” Livni stressed.
The Arab initiative, drafted at a March 2002 meeting of the Arab League in Beirut, calls for the full normalization of ties between Israel and the Arab world in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from all lands captured in the 1967 Six-Day War. Source

Homes in Jerusalem’s Old City

Israel has been willing to go back to 1967 borders, but must have the assurance of a true peace, otherwise their borders are not defensible, as has been proven over and over. How can you live side-by-side with those pledging to kill you when your borders allow no safety for the people? Read a reminder of how Israel gained territory in 1967 and why.

Mother Jones says Romney spoke of “the Palestinians as a united bloc of one mindset,” and indeed he did, because he knows who rules, and it isn’t ordinary Palestinians trying to live a normal life.  The issue is the acceptance of the right of Israel to exist.

Tom Segev can barely hide his contempt

June 12, 2011

Hard Leftist Tom Segev attended a lecture by Sir Martin Gilbert (pictured) at Tel Aviv University this past week, and from reading this account, I got the impression that Segev resents the fact that Gilbert is so strongly pro-Israel.

Gilbert, 75, has written more than 80 books, which makes him one of history’s most prolific historians. He authored Winston Churchill’s most comprehensive biography and a number of other important books. He and Crossman met at the Weizmann Archive in Rehovot, related Gilbert, telling another story he heard from him: In one of the DP camps, two of the Anglo-American commission members saw a Jew from Poland tearing up a U.S. immigration certificate. He was afraid the Holocaust could repeat itself there too, he said.
Crossman believed most of the camp inmates were interested in settling in the Land of Israel, but he also asked himself what the refugees would decide if the United States were an option. America had not invited them; they had to choose between Palestine and their countries of origin, including Poland, which had become a communist and anti-Semitic state. They preferred Palestine. Crossman’s question has remained open; Gilbert did not mention it.
It was a fine lecture, organized in chronological order. In the conflict between his country and Zionism seven decades ago, Gilbert is on Zionism’s side. This is not a black-and-white story, he noted, and he quoted certain British officials who evinced sympathy for the Zionist alternative, including the British ambassador in Poland in the 1940s. However, most of his references reflected great hostility to Zionism and even to the concentration camp survivors. Those of the latter who wound up under British occupation in Germany and Austria were put into detention camps and their food rations restricted, as though they were not victims of the Nazis but rather captive enemy soldiers.
Many years later Gilbert met the British diplomat George William Rendel, who wanted to deliver a confession. “There is something I regret,” he said. Gilbert pricked up his ears. “I regret I didn’t do more to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel.” Gilbert did not say that the British officials’ hostility reflected anti-Semitism: Apparently they simply preferred Arab oil.
Ultimately the British left Palestine, in response to growing Arab terror. Gilbert did not mention the Arab Revolt, which had already given the British their fill of the Land of Israel at the end of the 1930s, as though it had no part in this story.
Gilbert’s criticism of his country was very bitter. In Britain, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe is speaking in a similar tone, but he is attacking Zionist policy there. The difference between the two is this: Many Israelis consider Pappe to be a self-hating traitor. Sir Martin received a noble title from his queen and among those present at his lecture this week was Matthew Gould, the United Kingdom’s first Jewish ambassador to Israel.

Read the whole thing.


Winston Churchill ‘Ordered Assassination of Mussolini to Protect Compromising Letters’

September 2, 2010

THE TELEGRAPH: Winston Churchill ordered the assassination of Benito Mussolini as part of a plot to destroy potentially compromising secret letters he had sent the Italian dictator, a leading French historian has suggested.

Pierre Milza, an expert on fascist Italy, theorizes that the wartime prime minister may have wanted Mussolini dead to prevent the letters, in which Churchill expressed his admiration for his Italian counterpart before the outbreak of the Second World War, coming to light.

“There is no doubt, judging by his public declarations back in the 1920s and early 1930s, that Churchill was a fan of Mussolini. Roosevelt too,” Mr Milza said.

“Churchill even once said: ‘Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world… If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely’.

“But that was understandable in 1927, as then a fascist did not mean a friend of Hitler and accomplice to genocide. But when you are head of state and legitimate war hero of the British people, you don’t really want all that put up in lights.”

…so now we know how Bush felt about Saddam

noahdavidsimon’s posterous