Newt is a bull in a china shop when it comes to foreign policy. There is no way a sitting President would make such remarks about the Palestinians and still remain credible as an intermediary in any negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
...and he is right
Jim, congrats on your Free Republic tonight. Even though the posts were fast and furious, the site held up beautifully.
Maybe this debate will get rid of Romney for us, ya think?
Intermediary assumes a situation can be resolved. The Pallestinieans will not even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist! How do you “negotiate” with that as a stipulation?
I will never argue with you when it comes to foreign policy. You have waaay to much experience that I have never had. But among the contestants who has a better take on foreign policy than Newt?
How many of those countries support Israel's existence?
What the heck it there to negotiate?
“There is no way a sitting President would make such remarks about the Palestinians and still remain credible as an intermediary in any negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Bull...
The ONE thing that has missing in all of the Is-Pali negotiations is a STRONG VOICE willing to tell them both what it really is.
You don’t “negotiate” with people like the Pali’s, who have no interest in negotiating. You dictate terms, then you ENFORCE THEM.
Well, he gave the perfect example to defend his statement, Ronald Reagan: The Soviet Union is an evil empire.
What part of Newt telling the truth upsets you?
LOL!
Yeah, like being an "intermediary" between Israel and the Palestinians isn't a complete waste of time or anything.
So long as Palestinian nationalism was Ba’athist in flavor — which it once was, some of the more hard-line PLO types back in the day were Christians, possibly lapsed, but not into Ba’athist secularism, not Islam — there was a point in having an intermediary. Is there any more? Gaza is run by Hamas, and the PA has to hue to the Islamist line for fear of losing effective control of the West Bank to Hamas. Once it’s politicized Islam, rather than nationalism calling the shots, what’s to negotiate with?
Of course, ironically, Ba’athists would agree with Newt’s assessment: Ba’athism was (and is) a sort of pan-Arabist fascism, and denies there are national distinctions among Arabs.
You mean the examples given; "The Evil Empire" and "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall" notwithstanding, and the additional "Axis of Evil" rhetoric from W?
Why should there be any negotiations with the murdering so-called "Palestinians"? They have chronically declared war on Israel.
The Israelis need to push back, drive them out and confiscate their real estate.