Mitt Romney tells donors Palestinians 'have no interest' in peace in new video

If Palestinians would drop their weapons, it would end the war.

If Israelis would drop their weapons, it would end Israel.

 

May be true, may not be. I'm not a prophet, so I can't claim to know the future of every action.

Absolutely not true.

 

So that makes YOU personally a socialist - right? Because "America" elected a socialist as President, so all American's are socialists.

Right?

 

Why are you lying to us?

The palestinians in the west bank havent been armed for decades, Israeli troops have no problems moving wherever they like and building houses there too.

Yet the Israelis keep building, so clearly a defencless palestinian people doesnt mean a thing.

The trouble with this thread is the amount of clueless right wing Americans who really have no interest in the middle east but do have an interest in Romney being elected.

Time to leave this debate alone guys, youre not up for it.

 

How much does the DNC pay you to write this stuff?

 

So...Romney didn't say what was alleged?

 

So few Americans know anything at all about Palestine or the ME in general. Its a shame really.

 

True but theyre quite willing to whine and whine when some arab blows their legs off or sets fire to their embassies, then they act all surprised and start calling for mass murder........

 

Yeah, you're just a Muslim lovin', freedom hatin', America bashin' lib that wants to murder Jews.

And puppies.

JEWISH PUPPIES.

 

People have to actually be interested in a subject in order to study or give it any thought. I give you Mitt as a prime example.

 

Sorry, I simply put America first..

 

So do I. But in Republitopia that means we are a hate America cult bent on reanimating Hitler's corpse so he can usher in the end of Israel and worldwide Muslim dominance.

And public orgies.

Public gay orgies.

 

Your ideology is not about "America First". It is about changing America First.

It is pure ignorance to claim that "you don't know" if war between Palestine and Israel would end if Palestinians disarmed; for the brief moments after armistice where they did, hostilities ceased. When Israel acquiesced, Palestine became emboldened, and ramped up attacks.

This is the history of the region.

 

In ways that protect her and make her better in the long run.

Change isn't evil.

Yes, and everyone knows that people and problems never change. They stay the same for eternity so the same solutions will always work.

You know what else is the history of the region? I bet you dooooon't...

 

OMG.. That's a perfectly asinine remark.


This isn't about Hitler or the Holocaust. Its about human rights, civil rights and ethnic cleansing.

Taking property by force, destroying olive groves and confiscating water sources... is a problem..

Remember the European Jews sought sanctuary in Palestine.. Do you understand they were refugees?

 

Right, that was my point. I'm on your side here and poling fun at them

 

"Campaign disaster"?

Do you want somebody to candy-coat the truth for you, TFM? Would it make you feel better if Barry blew more rainbows up your ass?

Seriously, didn't you get the memo when the Palestinian people elected a group dedicated to Israel's destruction to head their government?

 

If the government of a neighboring nation constantly oppressed and hurt you, wouldn't you elect someone who promised to make the hurt stop?

 

Vacuous statement, as my objection isn't to change, but the nature of the change - and no, I will fight your notion of change 'til either you or I die.

Non sequitur. When cease-fires are declared, it is the Palestinians who violate them.

I know the history of the region far better than do you - all the way past the Canaanites.

 

Fascinatingly native statement. It's 2012, not 1860. Time to grow up and put the big boy pants on.

Which isn't to say I wouldn't win, by the way. I would.

Irrelevant. That does not excuse Israel's savagery.

Considering I've never discussed the history of the region with you, you are vastly unqualified to make that judgement.

 

Thats not the history of the region, hostilties have never ceased, in fact when armistice's have happened Israel has continued to build on land it had recently taken, then prod for more and then attack when the arabs have defended themselves.

Would you like to discuss this further? There a few of us here whove studied this conflict in detail.

 

What does the year have to do with the fact that I am dedicated to defeating your ideology?

No, you wouldn't.

Loony leftism. When discussing the principles of cease fires, it is not 'irrelevant' to note which party consistently violates them. It's the core point, in fact.

Nonsense. You've already attempted to call the core point proving your ignorance on the history 'irrelevant'. You've lost your ability to claim you know a focking thing.

 

In 2012, violence is unacceptable except in a defensive capacity. And I mean defense of your physical person, not silly, outdated ideas.

Whatever you say, epsilon.

On the contrary, who struck the first violent blow is irrelevant because it's more than physical acts involved, here. You can act aggressively without acting violently.

Not that I expect mindless brutes to understand such concepts.

 

I agree with Romney. And if you say it's not true....then name FIVE (5) things the Palestinians have done in the past 10 years that would indicate they are interested in making peace with Israel. FIVE.

 

I cant name a single one.

Arent they still firing rockets on southern israel?