Romney: Palestinians don’t want two-state solution, they want to eliminate Israel



The Republican candidate was prompted by a question posed by a Palestinian-American at a Florida debate; opponent Gingrich said in same debate he would move U.S. embassy to Jerusalem as president.
By Natasha Mozgovaya Tags: Mitt Romney Newt Gingrich US elections Barack Obama

Governor Mitt Romney said on Thursday that the Palestinians are not interested in a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather that they are interested in the elimination of the State of Israel.

The leading candidate in the race to become the Republican candidate for presidency was prompted by a question posed by a Palestinian-American Republican at a CNN-sponsored debate in Jacksonville, Florida on Thursday night.

Republican presidential candidates former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (L) and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney share a smile in CNN debate, January 26, 2012.

“Israelis would be happy to have a two-state solution.. It’s the Palestinians who don’t want a two-state solution; they want to eliminate the State of Israel,” Romney said.

Romney was responding when the man asked, “How would a Republican administration help bring peace to Palestine and Israel, when most candidates barely recognize the existence of Palestine or its people?”

Romney went on to say that “whether it’s in the political discourse that is spoken either from Fatah or from Hamas, there is a belief that the Jewish people do not have the right to have a Jewish state.”

“I believe the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say we stand with our friend Israel; we are committed to a Jewish state in Israel; we will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally Israel,” he added.

Romney attacked President Barack Obama’s policy saying,”This president went before the United Nations and castigated Israel for building settlements. He said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained on Israel from the Gaza Strip.”

“This president threw Israel under the bus with regards to defining the ’67 borders as the starting point of negotiations. I think he disrespected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Bibi Netanyahu. I think he has time and time again shown distance from Israel, and that created, in my view, a greater sense of aggression on the part of the Palestinians,” Romney added.

Former Speaker of House Newt Gingrich, who was asked to comment on his statement calling Palestinians “an invented people,” stood by his controversial remarks.

“It was technically an invention of the late 1970s,” Gingrich explained. “Prior to that they were Arabs.”

He went on to talk about the issue of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel.

“There were 11 rockets fired into Israel in November. Now imagine in Duval County that 11 rockets hit from your neighbor. How many you’d be for a peace process and how many of you’d say, you know, that looks like an act of war?” he said.

In a rare instance of harmony in this intense battle among the Republican candidates, Gingrich said Romney was right in his answer.

“On the first day that I am president, if I do become president, I will sign an executive order directing the State Department to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to send the signal we’re with Israel,” Gingrich said.

The National Jewish Democratic Council released a statement regarding what Romney said about President Obama.

“Governor Romney said that the President castigated Israel during his speech at the United Nations in September. He did no such thing,” the statement said.

Mr. Romney said the President made no reference to the ‘thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip;’ indeed, President Obama specifically cited how ‘Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses’ on the world stage of the United Nations in September. Enough is enough. The outright lies, smears and distortions of President Obama’s stellar Israel record must stop,” National Jewish Democratic Council President & CEO David A. Harris wrote.

January 27, 2012 | 10 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

10 Comments / 10 Comments

  1. Of course it’s the Pals. who don’t want it nothing new there It would wreck their terror industry and anyway the terrorists Hamas would not let any sensible person do it.

  2. I saw a poll yesterday that showed if it comes down to Newt and Obama, Obama would beat Newt by almost 25 points, Newt doesnt have a chance neither does Ron Paul, Romney is the only one that has a chance.

  3. I really don’t give a hang about Newt Gingrichs’ mostly alleged behavior in the past when the man he’s running against has bled the nation to near bankrupcy, got our credit rating lowered, has hurt the energy sector, left our rear flank wide open militarily, is lying about something every time his mouth is open, is importing thousands of moslems a year in a country with 12% unemployment, and refuses to even show us his birh certificate. Newt can beat “The Manchurian Candidate” and our nation’s survival depends on getting rid of the imposter-in-chief and his soggy policies.

  4. When you said that Newt’s opponents sold you on him, you expressed exactly what I thought. Look at the extremely vicious attacks on Gingerich, probe the sources and follow the money. When the popular network media (Obama’s backers) does a relentless “slash and burn” maneuver on a candidate, that’s the guy for me. Newt’s the one they fear, not Romney. Newt’s the man they think can win against Obama, so he has to be eliminated. I’d really relish a debate between Obama and Newt Gingerich.

  5. since everyone’s predicting, here is mine. Paul hasn’t a chance of winning but he can be a spoiler. Newt would not fare well against obama because he has been around but he is inactive nationally in over a decade and yet he cannot claim new kid on the block status. Romney could beat obama because moderates on the left side might accept him for his mass. health care, he is experienced in an executive govt role, he is a current figure and although people dont want obama they dont want surprise. A no vote for bush produced obama and they saw what that did. That’s pretty simplistic but so is the electorate. Therefore, expect more of the same but a little more to the right on its face.

  6. Poll results 27 Jan 2012:

    General Election: Romney vs. Obama NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Obama 49, Romney 43 Obama +6
    General Election: Gingrich vs. Obama NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Obama 55, Gingrich 37 Obama +18
    General Election: Santorum vs. Obama NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Obama 53, Santorum 38 Obama +15
    General Election: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 45, Romney 42 Obama +3
    General Election: Gingrich vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 48, Gingrich 41 Obama +7

    I have seen fluctuations between the Republican candidates in the Primary race, but Romney has held pretty steady against Obama — and Gingrich has consistently done among the worst (Even Santorum seems to be besting him!). Ron Paul has been doing better than Gingrich, and often is in a statistical tie with Romney in the final election — although he is unlikely to beat Romney and Gingrich in the Primaries.

    All that said, what makes you think Newt can do better than Romney? Romney (and Santorum) is funded by the same major bankers and media moguls as Obama, though obviously at a lower level. Their preference is: Obama, first choice; Romney, the backup, and Santorum the spoiler to draw away “non-Romney” votes.

    I think you’ve been in Israel too long, Yamit, with your romantic notions. We don’t vote for party slates here, and our leaders are not kept in line by threats of indictments from the Supreme Court. We do things the old-fashioned way here: We BUY our candidates, one at a time; and Gingrich simply doesn’t even have enough billionaire backers to compete with the big boys.

    If you want to really get romantic, support Ron Paul: He is literally backed by the Army, Navy and Air Force (that is, by contributions from active duty members), and he doesn’t have a chance of defeating Obama. In fact, now that Newt has adopted Ron’s fiscal policies, it might be time for Ron to bow out of the campaign.

    I will probably vote for Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich; but I shudder to think of Newt as the candidate. I’m not concerned about his baggage: He’s shown he can handle that problem; and I think he’ll be a lot better than McCain was of dumping Obama’s baggage on him. He’s a good debater, and he’s been able to turn the trend around. On the negative side, though, over half of Americans not only wouldn’t vote for him, they appear to hate him! — even more than they hate Obama.

    Mitt “Gold Cufflinks” Romney, on the other hand… people aren’t crazy about him, but they don’t hate him. He’s a successfull businessman; and those Americans who don’t think a bigger and more intrusive Federal Government is the answer to our problems might look to him as someone who can get paychecks coming in the mail again — if not, at least, to keep the mail coming. Those who believe in “IN BIG NANNY WE TRUST” will vote for Obama, no matter who runs against him.

    The “99% vs 1%”? Look where they’re at. The Tea Party is being laid down in the grave, and the Occupiers are being run out of town. They have played their cards and lost, beating each other. Meanwhile, America is out of work and either queuing up up to get a job from people like Romney (who fired them in the last takeover), hoping for a government job from Obama (who’s broke and can’t hire anyone), or going to Goldman Sachs to borrow money. Where is Newt Gingrich in this picture?

  7. I always liked Newt. What sold me on him this round was who is against him most. The same Republicans who gave us Bush McCain and Dole not in that order.

    Newt is the only viable candidate that can beat Obama. Obama wanted McCain so his team helped get him the nomination and they want Romney today. Newt will, despite his personal baggage deprive Obama of his election story line. Haves against Have-Nots. 99% against the 1%.

    If anyone thinks Romney made his money without insider leveraging they know nothing. He was a predator investor who used political connections to amass a fortune for himself and his investors. He knows as much about the real economy as Al Capone. Even his charitable contributions was given in stock to avoid paying capital gains and his church pays no taxes. Not illegal but shows what he is about. He is a money junkie who would leverage the position of president to increase his own fortune and his fellow 1% rs.

    Think of him as a wannabe Nelson Rockefeller.

  8. The leading candidate

    As of 26 January, the polls showed Newt Gingrich leading Mitt Romney nationally, though trailing in Florida (where it counts, at the moment). These numbers could shift dramatically in any 24-hour period, as Republicans seem to have “mad voter disease”.

    I think Romney and Gingrich both have been extemporizing, sniffing at the polls to see what the voters want and the creating a narrowly-defined position. My apologies to some zealots here, but Ron Paul is the only candidate who has an overall plan from which positions flow.


    All that said, I’ve already endorsed Paul AND Gingrich here, though I would vote for Romney in the election; and all of the polls for the past year have indicated that Romney has the best chance of beating Obama.

    THAT said, I’m not impressed by Romney’s words above. He says the Arabs want a “one state” solution and the Israelis want a “two state” solution. It isn’t that simple, for one thing (If the Israelis were asked, “Do you want Judea and Samaria to become like Hamas? Or do you prefer a one-state solution”, about 80% of them would say, “I prefer a one state solution”. For another thing, the correct position for an AMERICAN Presidential candidate ought to be, “It’s the Israelis’ business, and theirs alone, what sort of a solution they get — It’s their country!”.

  9. Whenever gentile leaders such as Gingrich or Romney tell the truth about the treachery of Obama towards Israel there are always Jewish traitors to lie in support of Obama. This confuses our gentile friends because they cannot believe that there are Jews so self debased that they hate those gentiles who support Israel. Part of the problem is that our own Jewish public relations fail to educate the public to this ugly reality of extremist self-hating Jews.