Photo Credit:
A recently released hidden video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaking at a fundraiser in May (see video below).

A candid video of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney doubting the logic of establishing a Palestinian state was released by the Leftist website, Mother Jones, earlier today.

The video was taken at a fundraiser for the Romney campaign on May 17th of this year.

Advertisement

In the video Romney says that he is “torn by two perspectives” with regard to Israeli-Palestinian peace. According to the first, which is the one he “has long held”, “the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish.”

Romney elaborated, outlining the problems Israel would have ensuring that the Palestinian state does not become militarized or used by Iran as a base to attack Israel.

The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, “Uh, no way! We’re an independent country. You can’t guard our border with other Arab nations.”

And now how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we going to allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in? And if not, who’s going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are going to say, “We’re not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport.”

The other perspective Romney mentioned is that of an unnamed former secretary of state who Romney said called him and told him that after the next Palestinian Authority elections there will be prospects for peace. However, Romney said he “did not delve into” that view.

Romney – according to the first perspective at least – appears more opposed to Palestinian statehood than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who said Israel should accept a “demilitarized” Palestinian state, as Romney argues that it would be impossible to ensure that the state remained demiliterized.

Here’s the text of the portion of Romney’s speech released by Mother Jones (the video is below):

I’m torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I’ve had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish.

Now why do I say that? Some might say, well let’s let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then comes a couple of thorny questions.

And I don’t have a map right here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It’s—what the border be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…

The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course, the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza.

Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. So Israel of course would have to say, “That can’t happen. We’ve got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank.” Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, “Uh, no way! We’re an independent country. You can’t guard our border with other Arab nations.”

And now how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we going to allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in? And if not, who’s going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are going to say, “We’re not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport.”

These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And 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.”

And so 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. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don’t go to war to try and resolve it imminently.

On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won’t mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there’s a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, “Really?” And, you know, his answer was, “Yes, I think there’s some prospect.” And I didn’t delve into it.

Advertisement

49 COMMENTS

  1. This proves that Romney is unwilling to take the time or has no interest in helping to bring peace to the middle east. As I have said here before, Obama will take 70% of the Jewish vote and be reelected.

  2. What a relief to hear someone speak the obvious truth – anyone who thinks the Arabs will accept a demilitarized state any time in the next few decades, at least, are either hopelessly, aggressively naive, or lying- either way they should not be involved with making decisions about the Middle East. Obama will undoubtedly receive the majority of the American Jewish vote, but that says a lot about those Jews, and it isn’t that they consider Israel’s security a priority when they vote.

  3. The simmering religious in the Middle East may eventually destroy civilization. Mitt “Cyborg” Romney stirs it up because he is an agent of the Mormon Church. To gain an existential understanding of the cult that produced Mitt "Cyborg" Romney, and to get your socks scared off, read The Assassination of Spiro Agnew, available in paperback and ebook at:

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Assassination+of+Spiro+Agnew

    Its unwilling, part-Mexican Mormon assassin dramatizes the Mormon superiority complex, manifesting it as racism, sexism, jingoism and an anti-federal government temperament. His research in the new library reveals ominous similarities between Islam and Mormonism. The spiritual power behind the cult, which is not the Holy Ghost, acts out.

    “With a clarity of language and vision unsurpassed in contemporary American prose, Steven Janiszewski's Assassination of Spiro Agnew takes us into a U.S. mazed with madness and Mormonism and all things Utah, a U.S. that was then and still is. Do we need a novel, even as brilliant as this one, about a young man on a divine mission to assassinate the Vice President because he is too liberal? Yes, now more than ever. Readers, welcome to a masterpiece.”.

    Tom Whalen
    http://www.tomwhalen.com

    Read The Assassination of Spiro Agnew.
    Mr. Rushdie would enjoy its post-modern style as much as he would be abhorred by the Mormon experience.

  4. What a relief to hear someone speak the obvious truth – anyone who thinks the Arabs will accept a demilitarized state any time in the next few decades, at least, are either hopelessly, aggressively naive, or lying- either way they should not be involved with making decisions about the Middle East. Obama will undoubtedly receive the majority of the American Jewish vote, but that says a lot about those Jews, and it isn't that they consider Israel's security a priority when they vote.

  5. This is a guy who was for a lot of things before he was against them and against them before he was for them – his 180 degree change of view on abortion being one such example. The words in this statement are fine but we have no idea whether he agrees with what he is saying or not. With Romney it seems like he will say whatever will please the people to whom he is speaking. If he was speaking to a bunch of rich Arab donors, he would tell them that he feels terrible about the plight of Arab Palestinians and that they need a state. This is not to say that Obama does not go against things he says but we are talking about Romney here. This appears to be nothing more than pandering and if he is elected, this position like all the pledges from prior presidents of both parties to move the US embassy to Jerusalem will go out the window due to practical imperatives.

  6. He did not pledge to move the US Embassy, unlike so many other presidents pledged, and then did not move them. My guess is, Stephen, that he does not have a bunch of rich Arab donors, unlike the other man running for president, and that man’s self-proclaimed “blocking back,” J Street.

  7. Heather, it is Ryan/Romney who plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program. Abortion is the law of the land. Romney cares no more for Israel than he does for the 47% he claims to be moochers. And yes, Obama WILL be reelected, and WILL get 70% of the Jewish vote.

  8. Another unauthenticated slur from “journalist” LLM? With absolutely no evidence, you assert Obama has a “bunch of rich arab donors.” Please supply the evidence or rescind this outrageous slur.

  9. And yes, as an American Jew I vote based on the candidates’ positions on a number of American Issues and American security, as well as issues about Israel. I assume that when people vote in Israel that American security is not a priority, nor should it be.

  10. @ Micheal Blum: Only a true prophet of Hashem can fortell the future with 100 % accuracy so you are either a prophet, speaking for Hashem who does not nor cannot lie, or you are a false prophet. Or, you are practicing divinity which is a sin. Why not consider that whatever happens is G*d’s will and not yours.

  11. oh, Michael, didn’t you learn from our last exchange? As I recall, you had to retract each of your claims that I was incorrect. But more importantly, why is it a slur to suggest that rich Arabs donate to President Obama? Are you suggesting there is a problem for rich Arabs to donate to whomever they want? And isn’t that what Stephen suggested about Romney? As he made clear, the only problem with it would be if either candidate made one statement to a group of rich Jews and then made a completely contradictory statement to rich Arabs. That is why I made the point about J Street, which was because they had originally claimed all their donors were from Jewish Americans and then…oops, their donor reports showed non-Jews, non-Americans and even groups opposed to Israel were donors.

  12. Romney, another Republican Vietnam chicken hawk, also appears to be another patsy for the neocons, like Bush. His ignorance is stunning. He would franchise US policy to Netanyahu. Fortunately he won’t get the chance.

  13. Laurie _ You apparently consider it a bad thing to accept donations from rich Arabs. (NB: your original post contrasting your favored candidate to mine.) More to the point here, however, is your continued assertion of facts without evidence. What EVIDENCE do you have to support your ASSERTION that Obama has a “bunch of rich Arab donors”? If you have no EVIDENCE, please let us know that your ASSERTION is an OPINION, not a FACT. Thank you.

    And, lest you accuse me of misquoting you, here is what you said: “My guess is, Stephen, that he does not have a bunch of rich Arab donors, unlike the other man running for president, and that man’s self-proclaimed “blocking back,” J Street.”

  14. This is a guy who was for a lot of things before he was against them and against them before he was for them – his 180 degree change of view on abortion being one such example. The words in this statement are fine but we have no idea whether he agrees with what he is saying or not. With Romney it seems like he will say whatever will please the people to whom he is speaking. If he was speaking to a bunch of rich Arab donors, he would tell them that he feels terrible about the plight of Arab Palestinians and that they need a state. This is not to say that Obama does not go against things he says but we are talking about Romney here. This appears to be nothing more than pandering and if he is elected, this position like all the pledges from prior presidents of both parties to move the US embassy to Jerusalem will go out the window due to practical imperatives.

  15. Michael, it isn’t hard to find those people. Just one example is Imaad Zuberi. Again, there’s nothing wrong with people giving to, and raising money for, their preferred candidates, the issue is whether they say opposite things to groups with opposite interests. But going forward I don’t think it’s useful to do your research for you. If you don’t like what I say, that’s fine. Learning how to do your own research could be very exciting for you and then perhaps you can write your own articles. I look forward to that.

  16. He did not pledge to move the US Embassy, unlike so many other presidents pledged, and then did not move them. My guess is, Stephen, that he does not have a bunch of rich Arab donors, unlike the other man running for president, and that man's self-proclaimed "blocking back," J Street.

  17. Heather, it is Ryan/Romney who plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program. Abortion is the law of the land. Romney cares no more for Israel than he does for the 47% he claims to be moochers. And yes, Obama WILL be reelected, and WILL get 70% of the Jewish vote.

  18. And yes, as an American Jew I vote based on the candidates' positions on a number of American Issues and American security, as well as issues about Israel. I assume that when people vote in Israel that American security is not a priority, nor should it be.

  19. I do not ask you to do my “research” for me, Laurie, but I do ask that you , as a responsible journalist, state the facts upon which you base your assertions. As to Mr. Zuberi, you are mistaken. He is a Pakistani American. Last I looked, Pakistan is definitely in South Asia. Contrary to your baseless assertion, he is neither an Arab nor an Arab American. Your inattention to such details deeply undercuts your credibility. Care to try again?

  20. @ Micheal Blum: Only a true prophet of Hashem can fortell the future with 100 % accuracy so you are either a prophet, speaking for Hashem who does not nor cannot lie, or you are a false prophet. Or, you are practicing divinity which is a sin. Why not consider that whatever happens is G*d's will and not yours.

  21. And he belongs to the Saudi Arabian Business and Professional Network because….? But this really will be my last reply to you. And just a by the by, it does not help your credibility when you cannot spell correctly the name next to the comments to which you are responding.

  22. oh, Michael, didn't you learn from our last exchange? As I recall, you had to retract each of your claims that I was incorrect. But more importantly, why is it a slur to suggest that rich Arabs donate to President Obama? Are you suggesting there is a problem for rich Arabs to donate to whomever they want? And isn't that what Stephen suggested about Romney? As he made clear, the only problem with it would be if either candidate made one statement to a group of rich Jews and then made a completely contradictory statement to rich Arabs. That is why I made the point about J Street, which was because they had originally claimed all their donors were from Jewish Americans and then…oops, their donor reports showed non-Jews, non-Americans and even groups opposed to Israel were donors.

  23. Laurie _ You apparently consider it a bad thing to accept donations from rich Arabs. (NB: your original post contrasting your favored candidate to mine.) More to the point here, however, is your continued assertion of facts without evidence. What EVIDENCE do you have to support your ASSERTION that Obama has a "bunch of rich Arab donors"? If you have no EVIDENCE, please let us know that your ASSERTION is an OPINION, not a FACT. Thank you.

    And, lest you accuse me of misquoting you, here is what you said: "My guess is, Stephen, that he does not have a bunch of rich Arab donors, unlike the other man running for president, and that man's self-proclaimed "blocking back," J Street."

  24. Michael, it isn't hard to find those people. Just one example is Imaad Zuberi. Again, there's nothing wrong with people giving to, and raising money for, their preferred candidates, the issue is whether they say opposite things to groups with opposite interests. But going forward I don't think it's useful to do your research for you. If you don't like what I say, that's fine. Learning how to do your own research could be very exciting for you and then perhaps you can write your own articles. I look forward to that.

  25. I do not ask you to do my "research" for me, Laurie, but I do ask that you , as a responsible journalist, state the facts upon which you base your assertions. As to Mr. Zuberi, you are mistaken. He is a Pakistani American. Last I looked, Pakistan is definitely in South Asia. Contrary to your baseless assertion, he is neither an Arab nor an Arab American. Your inattention to such details deeply undercuts your credibility. Care to try again?

  26. And he belongs to the Saudi Arabian Business and Professional Network because….? But this really will be my last reply to you. And just a by the by, it does not help your credibility when you cannot spell correctly the name next to the comments to which you are responding.

Loading Facebook Comments ...