Romney Repeats Conservative cop-out on the Middle East conflict

Forums: Politics, Romney, Palestine, Us Politics, Israel
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Conservatives have a little slogan that they repeat quite often.

Quote:

The Palestinians don't want peace.

Of course this is a ridiculous statement when you think about it. Of course the people in Palestine want peace. The issue is the terms being offered. If you said "The Palestinians don't want peace under the terms that Israel is offering" it would make more sense... but of course it is also true that the Israelis don't want peace under the terms that the Palestinians are offering.

But the blanket statement that either the Israelis or the Palestinians don't want peace is ridiculous.

But it is worse that that. This simplistic slogan means you don't have to negotiate. It gives you an excuse to stop working on the complicated issues. If you convince yourself that your negotiating partners aren't human, then a hard-line stance that gives nothing and makes no attempt at peace becomes defensible.

That works if you are a conservative pundit talking to a conservative crowd. But Romney has a problem.

Romney is going to now have to defend this hard-line, no negotiation stance in front of a national audience. As someone who wants to be leader of the free world, arguing that we shouldn't address a difficult problem in an important region is a really uncomfortable position.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 6,071 • Replies: 79

@maxdancona,

Republicans dont do facts, just opinions.

1 Reply

His base certainly is of this mindset, look at the screeching heads at FoxNews, but also a lot of independents who are crucial for his candidacy.

I think most Americans are decidedly pro-Israel instead of pro-peace.

This issue will have little to no bearing on the election.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Conservatives have a little slogan that they repeat quite often.

Quote:
The Palestinians don't want peace.

Of course this is a ridiculous statement when you think about it.

Not ridiculous at all. All they are doing is telling the truth.

maxdancona wrote:

Of course the people in Palestine want peace.

If the Palestinians want peace, why do they refuse to negotiate? And when negotiations actually happen, why do Palestinians run around trying to murder children?

maxdancona wrote:

The issue is the terms being offered.

No, the issue is that the Palestinians refuse to negotiate. And when they do end up at the negotiating table, all the Palestinians do is try to murder children.

maxdancona wrote:

This simplistic slogan means you don't have to negotiate.

Note that the ONLY reason that there are no negotiations, is because the Palestinians are refusing to negotiate.

maxdancona wrote:

It gives you an excuse to stop working on the complicated issues.

No excuse is needed. The outrageous accusations that Israel has never made an honest peace offer, are full justification for never attempting another.

So far Israel has been generous and has remained willing to negotiate despite the horrible lies.

But when Israel finally loses patience and walks away from negotiations for good, there will not be any need for excuses. They already have every right to do so.

maxdancona wrote:

If you convince yourself that your negotiating partners aren't human, then a hard-line stance that gives nothing and makes no attempt at peace becomes defensible.

That works if you are a conservative pundit talking to a conservative crowd. But Romney has a problem.

Romney is going to now have to defend this hard-line, no negotiation stance in front of a national audience. As someone who wants to be leader of the free world, arguing that we shouldn't address a difficult problem in an important region is a really uncomfortable position.

I'm comfortable with it.

That said, what is the difficult problem? Just make the separation fence the new national border, and that'll be the end of it.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Republicans dont do facts, just opinions.

Nonsense.

0 Replies

The obvious way forward on a two state solution starts with the 1967 borders. Israel needs to keep their demographics to be majority Jewish, so the Palestinians will need to give up the right of return. Palestine needs to have an economically viable, contiguous state so the Israelis need to give up the settlements.

There is support on both the Israeli and Palestinian side for this plan, in spite of the fact there are extremists on both sides actively disrupting peace.

But the United States should be on the side of peace. It is in our national interest.

Since this region affects our country, I want a president who will support the peace process, not one who throws his hands up without using his influence to get both sides to the table.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

The main barrier to peace isn't Palestinian intransigence, but the illegal construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Why should the needs of Israel trump the needs of the Palestinian peoples?

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Because if both sides compromise it will bring the greatest benefit to everyone involved.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

That's a circular argument, though.

The need to compromise doesn't address the question of why the Israelis need to keep a majority Jewish demographic.

How will this need of the Iraelis be affected when the Arab Israeli population overtakes the Jewish one in a few generations?

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

That is not a circular argument at all.

I am stating that to reach peace you need to give each side some of what they want, and ask each side to compromise. A good negotiator will look for situations where what each side most wants don't conflict.

I am not arguing the merits of the position of each side. I am merely suggesting that a negotiated peace settlement would be in everyone's interest.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The obvious way forward on a two state solution starts with the 1967 borders. Israel needs to keep their demographics to be majority Jewish, so the Palestinians will need to give up the right of return. Palestine needs to have an economically viable, contiguous state so the Israelis need to give up the settlements.

The vast majority of the settlers are close to the border, and are not located where they would prevent the Palestinians from having a contiguous state.

Even full 1967 borders would not require most settlers to move, as a few minor land swaps would put them on the Israeli side of the border.

maxdancona wrote:

There is support on both the Israeli and Palestinian side for this plan, in spite of the fact there are extremists on both sides actively disrupting peace.

Not much support on the Palestinian side. They have a history of refusing to negotiate. And even when they do end up at the negotiating table, all they do is try to murder as many children as they can.

maxdancona wrote:

But the United States should be on the side of peace. It is in our national interest.

There is little that the United States can do about the fact that the Palestinians refuse to make peace.

maxdancona wrote:

Since this region affects our country, I want a president who will support the peace process, not one who throws his hands up without using his influence to get both sides to the table.

What influence do you think an American president has that could get the Palestinians to the negotiating table?

And how would this American president then prevent the Palestinians from murdering children if they did arrive at the negotiating table?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

The main barrier to peace isn't Palestinian intransigence

Nope. The barrier to peace is the fact that the Palestinians refuse to negotiate, and the fact that whenever the Palestinians do get forced to the negotiating table, all they do is run around murdering children.

izzythepush wrote:

but the illegal construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

That's no barrier to peace.

And it's also not illegal. Most of the settlers are on land that Israel is going to annex.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Why should the needs of Israel trump the needs of the Palestinian peoples?

Because the IDF and the US military say so.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Because if both sides compromise it will bring the greatest benefit to everyone involved.

You might want to muse on that term "both sides" for a bit.

The Palestinians have a history of refusing to negotiate or compromise.

And if you are so eager to restart peace talks, you might want to also give a bit of thought to the fact that your outrageous false allegations against Israel are not very conducive to making them want to try again.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

How will this need of the Iraelis be affected when the Arab Israeli population overtakes the Jewish one in a few generations?

It is not clear that this will even come to pass, but since Israel is a Jewish state, they will have to continue to hold a minority position in the government so long as they belong to some other religion.

Perhaps they'd consider converting to Judaism.

If they want to live in a majority Islamic government, they'll have to move to the Palestinian state (if it is ever created).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That is not a circular argument at all.

I am stating that to reach peace you need to give each side some of what they want, and ask each side to compromise.

Yes. But you are not asking the Palestinians to compromise.

All you are doing is falsely accusing Israel of refusing to compromise, to cover for the fact that the Palestinians are refusing to compromise.

That reenforces the Palestinians' negative behavior and encourages further intransigence. And it certainly doesn't make Israel feel like trying yet again.

If you really want to encourage Israel back to the negotiating table, making up false accusations about the last time they were at the negotiating table is exactly the wrong way to go about doing it.

Personally, I've given up on negotiations. I have no idea how to undo all the damage that has been done both by the Palestinian aggression, and by all the false accusations against Israel.

But I can guarantee you that more false accusations against Israel can only make negotiations even more impossible.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
How will this need of the Iraelis be affected when the Arab Israeli population overtakes the Jewish one in a few generations?

It is not clear that this will even come to pass, but since Israel is a Jewish state, they will have to continue to hold a minority position in the government so long as they belong to some other religion.

Perhaps they'd consider converting to Judaism.

If they want to live in a majority Islamic government, they'll have to move to the Palestinian state (if it is ever created).

That's not very democratic.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I see oralloy is being his usual "stick to the facts" kind of guy....

Quote:

Not much support on the Palestinian side. They have a history of refusing to negotiate. And even when they do end up at the negotiating table, all they do is try to murder as many children as they can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

Quote:

Between the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000 and December 2011, 1331 Palestinian and 129 Israeli children under the age of 18 have been killed, according to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights monitoring group

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

When used it refers to the Palestinian leadership, although given the fact that a majoirty of Palestinian people put Hamas in power in Gaza, it's reasonable to assume that the only peace they wish to see is that which will follow an Israeli surrender or extermination.

2 Replies

Romney Repeats Conservative cop-out on the Middle East conflict

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know