Romney and Perry on Israel/Palestine
Both these guys seem to get it.
Yesterday, Mitt Romney was quoted in The Corner on The National Review Online thus:
What we are watching unfold at the United Nations is an unmitigated diplomatic disaster. It is the culmination of President Obama’s repeated efforts over three years to throw Israel under the bus and undermine its negotiating position. That policy must stop now. In his speech to the U.N. this week, President Obama must unequivocally reaffirm the United States’ commitment to the security of Israel and its continued existence as a Jewish state. And he must make clear that if the Palestinian Authority succeeds in gaining any type of U.N. recognition, the United States will cut foreign assistance to the Palestinians, as well as re-evaluate its funding of U.N. programs and its relationship with any nation voting in favor of recognition. Actions that compromise the interests of the United States, our allies, and all those who desire a lasting peace must have consequences.
Here's Rick Perry, who also spoke yesterday on the same subject at a press conference in New York. Describing the forthcoming statehood declaration as a "Palestinian gambit to establish statehood in violation of the spirit of the 1993 Oslo Accords," he went on to say:
We are indignant that certain Middle Eastern leaders have discarded the principle of direct negotiations between the sovereign nation of Israel and the Palestinian leadership, and we are equally indignant that the Obama Administration’s Middle East policy of appeasement has encouraged such an ominous act of bad faith.
Simply put, we would not be here today at the precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama Policy in the Middle East wasn’t naïve, arrogant, misguided and dangerous.
It must be said, first, that Israel is our oldest and strongest democratic ally in the Middle East and has been for more than 60 years. The Obama Policy of moral equivalency, which gives equal standing to the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism, is a dangerous insult.
There is no middle ground between our allies and those who seek their destruction. America should not be ambivalent between the terrorist tactics of Hamas and the security tactics of the legitimate and free state of Israel. By proposing ‘indirect talks” through the U.S. rather than between Palestinian leaders and Israel, this administration encouraged the Palestinians to shun direct talks.
Second, it was wrong for this Administration to suggest the 1967 borders should be the starting point for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. When you consider this suggestion was made on the eve of the Israeli Prime Minister’s visit, we see in this American Administration a willingness to isolate a close ally and to do so in a manner that is insulting and naïve.
Third, by injecting the issue of 1967 borders in addition to a construction freeze in East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements, the Obama Administration has put Israel in a position of weakness and taken away their flexibility to offer concessions as part of the negotiation process.
Indeed, bolstered by the Obama Administration’s policies and apologists at the U.N., the Palestinians are exploiting the instability in the Middle East hoping to achieve their objective without concessions or direct negotiations with Israel.
The reason is simple: if they perceive they can get what they want from the U.N. without making any concessions why should they negotiate with Israel?
While the administration is right to finally agree to fight the Arab resolution at the U.N., it bears repeating that we wouldn’t be here today if they had stuck to some basic principles concerning Palestinian statehood:
First, Palestinian leaders must publicly affirm Israel’s right to exist, and to exist as a Jewish state;
Second, President Abbas must persuade all factions including Hamas to renounce acts of terrorism and release kidnapped Israeli Gilad Shalit, and;
Third, Palestinian statehood must be established only through direct negotiations between the Palestinian leadership and the nation of Israel.
By not insisting on these principles, the Obama Administration has appeased the Arab Street at the expense of our own national security interests. They have sowed instability that threatens the prospects of peace.
Israel’s security is critical to America’s security. We must not forget it was Israel that took out the nuclear capabilities of Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. In both instances, their actions made the free world safer.
Today, the greatest threat to the security of Israel and, by extension, a threat to America, is the Iranian government developing a nuclear arsenal. One thing is clear: we must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Economic sanctions must be tightened and increased and all options must remain on the table to stop a brutally repressive regime from acquiring a nuclear capability.
To date, we have fumbled our greatest opportunity for regime change. As average Iranian citizens were marching on Tehran in the Green Revolution in 2009, America was wasting precious time on a naïve policy of outreach to both the Iranian and Syrian governments.
Who knows what the leadership of Iran would look like today if America had done everything in its power to provide diplomatic and moral support to encourage the growing movement of dissidents who sought freedom.
Our actions in recent years have destabilized the Middle East. We have been complacent in encouraging revolt against hostile governments in Iran and Syria and we have been slow to recognize the risks posed by the new regime in Egypt and the increasingly strained relationship between Israel and Turkey.
It is vitally important for America to preserve alliances with moderate Muslim regimes and Muslim leaders who seek to preserve peace and stability in the region. But today, neither adversaries nor allies alike, know where America stands.
Our muddle of a foreign policy has created greater uncertainty in the midst of the “Arab Spring.” And our policy of isolating and undermining Israel has only encouraged our adversaries in their aggression.
With the end-run on Palestinian statehood imminent before the U.N., America must act swiftly.
First, every nation within the U.N. must know America stands with Israel and the Oslo accord principle of direct negotiations without equivocation.
Second, America must make it clear that a declaration of Palestinian Statehood in violation of the spirit of the Oslo accords could jeopardize our funding of U.N. operations.
Third, the Palestinians must know their gambit comes with consequences in particular that America will have to reconsider the $4 billion in assistance we have provided to the Palestinians over the last 17 years.
Fourth, we should close the PLO office in Washington if the U.N. grants the standing of a Palestinian state.
And fifth, we must signal to the world, including nations like Turkey and Egypt whom we have considered allies in recent years, that we won’t tolerate aggression against Israel.
Israel is our friend and ally. I have traveled there several times, and met with its leaders. It is not a perfect nation, but its existence is critical to America’s security in the world.
It is time to change our policy of appeasement toward the Palestinians to strengthen our ties to the nation of Israel, and in the process establish a robust American position in the Middle East characterized by a new firmness and a new resolve.
If America does not head off the aggression of forces hostile to Israel we will only embolden them.
That would be a tragic mistake.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Feb '11
Re: Romney and Perry on Israel/Palestine
Judith Levy:
Here's Rick Perry, who also spoke yesterday on the same subject at a press conference in New York.
<snip>
"Second" puts part of the onus on the UN itself. Good move.
"Fourth" should kick in with the proposal, not the approval.
Feb '11
Re: Romney and Perry on Israel/Palestine
U.S. funding for the Palestinians should be cut off for generating this crisis by seeking recognition as a state through the Security Council or observer status through the OIC-dominated General Assembly. Our stated pre-conditions are clear and have not been met: Recognition by Palestinians of Israel as a Jewish state and cessation of all hostile actions, terrorism and otherwise, against Israel and Israelis, and then on to negotiations about the two-state arrangements.
Mar '11
Re: Romney and Perry on Israel/Palestine
I very much liked Romney's proposal that other countries must be held accountable for their votes. Why should the US give "allies" free passes to vote as they like?
The Federal government attaches strings to everything it does - domestically. In foreign affairs, there are no strings. This should be changed.
Feb '11
Re: Romney and Perry on Israel/Palestine
I'm happy that Perry mentioned the Oslo accord, people don't seem to realize that the proposal itself is illegal and in breach of those treaties. I'm happy Romney mentioned funding, let Egypt and Turkey fill in the $4 billion hole
Jun '10
Re: Romney and Perry on Israel/Palestine
My source on Iran tells me that we have two problems:
1) Neither US nor Israeli intelligence knows how deep the bunkers are that contain the Iranian nuclear program. It's therefore impossible to assess the effectiveness of a military strike against them.
2) We know there are factions within the Iranian government, but our knowledge is too limited to exploit the situation. Any leaked information by various sources (press or intelligence) should be regarded a form of psy-ops against the Iranian government, but nothing definitive should be concluded from leaked information.
In the meantime, a low-level war is being conducted through sabotage and assassination mostly against Iranian scientists involved in their nuclear program. The situation remains dicey because we still have more questions than answers.
May '10
Re: Romney and Perry on Israel/Palestine
Santorum, for one, was not too impressed with the Perry speech:
"I've forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel. .... There he is, reading a speech that I'm sure he didn't write, and has never taken a position on any of this stuff before, and [the media] taking this guy seriously." Etc.
Reads like a somebody-look-at-me tantrum by Santorum. On the other hand, based on Perry's incoherent, rambling answers on foriegn policy -- especially the situation in Afghanistan -- in the debates to date, it's hard to argue with Santorum's point.
Re: Romney and Perry on Israel/Palestine
It's nice these guys can get the message, but it's meaningless if they can't get the votes...especially from Jews themselves. It's very difficult to make American Jews realize the Dems aren't acting in our best interest, when a vast majority of the large American Jewish organizations are so deeply entrenched in leftist policy and most secular Jews have embraced liberalism as their new Talmud.
Re: Romney and Perry on Israel/Palestine
Glad to see Perry's speech gets your stamp of approval, Judith. The liberal blogs are calling the speech clownish, but they're quite obviously speaking from a perspective of hostility toward Israel.