However, the circumstances surrouding our relationship with the Soviet Union is far different than our role as the intermediary between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Ostensibly, we have tried to be an objective mediator helping both parties to arrive at a solution. Once you describe one party to the negotiations as illegitimate, you have lost all credibility with the Palestinians. I don't think the Israelis would find that helpful.
Your comments are well thought out, but Newt’s comment was inappropriate only IF he was interested in being an objective intermediater between the Israelis and the Palistinians. But it looks like Newt thinks there’s no chance for “peace” talks until the Palistinians stop launching missiles, and teaching their kids that murdering Jews is heroic. And there’s additionally no chance if the Palistinians continue to think that Israel is their historic homeland.
Sometimes one party is in fact illegitimate and "negotiating" in bad faith. At what point does one call it for what it is? If one party in the dispute declares the desire for the destruction of the other, is there really room for politesse?
Maybe, maybe not. We’ll see. But it is great to see someone of Newt’s stature stating the truth about the nature of the enemy, ie, the evil doers (to paraphrase another Republican President who spoke the truth about Islamic terrorists).