IF AT FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE ---- What will Romney advise our friends since he promised to do the opposit of Obama ?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2012 10:39 PM GMT
    Romney has promised to do the Opposite of Obama in relations with our friends the Israeli's, Recently Israeli officials say a UN fact-finding mission “will not be allowed to enter” the country and its occupied territories."The fact-finding mission will find no cooperation in Israel, and its members will not be allowed to enter Israel and the territories,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. “Its existence embodies the inherent distortion that typifies the UN Human Rights Council's treatment of Israel and the hijacking of the important human rights agenda by non-democratic countries.”

    The Obama Administration / State Department have advised for the Israeli's to be more open, that closing the door to cooperation would make it appear there is something to hide.

    WHAT WILL ROMNEY DO ? Should he do as promised "the opposite of Obama" ? or like Obama advise them to be more open If Israel has nothing to hide? Romney has claimed as have the Republicans in general that Obama is trying to force Israel to agree to things they don' want to. Seems to me that Romney would be better off advising openess whether the Israeli Leadership likes it or not.

    Here's the Issue:

    Israel slams door on UN Human Rights Council over settlement row

    Israeli officials say a UN fact-finding mission “will not be allowed to enter” the country and its occupied territories. On Friday, the Geneva-based Human Rights Council appointed three officers to probe Israel’s West Bank settlement activity.

    ­The UN's top human rights body has commissioned three jurists to find out how Israel's West Bank settlements affect “the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people.” The body called on Tel Aviv “not to obstruct the process of cooperation.”


    This resonated harshly with Israel, who took no time to dub the mission “biased and flawed,” vowing not to support the officials.


    "The fact-finding mission will find no cooperation in Israel, and its members will not be allowed to enter Israel and the territories,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. “Its existence embodies the inherent distortion that typifies the UN Human Rights Council's treatment of Israel and the hijacking of the important human rights agenda by non-democratic countries.”


    Israel cut all ties with the council in March after the 47-nation body passed a resolution establishing the settlement probe. Israel accuses the commission of a “disproportionate focus” on Israel.


    "The establishment of this mission is another blatant expression of the singling out of Israel in the UNHRC," a Foreign Ministry statement said on Friday.


    Now that the team is to be prohibited from Israel, it will have to gain evidence from second-hand sources, like local media.
    But even if the mission finds that the settlements violate human rights, any attempts to punish Israel will most probably be defused by the US, Israel’s key ally.


    The UN considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law. The Human Rights Council says Israel's plans to build more houses in the West Bank and East Jerusalem undermine the peace process and pose a threat to the two-state solution.


    The West Bank settlements are at the core of dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. Some 500,000 Israelis and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a territory that Israel expropriated from Jordan in 1967. Palestinians claim the West Bank is part of their future state, and object to any settlements there.

    Israel cites historical and biblical links to the West Bank, saying the status of the settlements should be decided in peace negotiations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 25, 2012 9:45 AM GMT
    Romney Promises “the Opposite” of Obama’s Israel Policy


    By Daniel Larison • June 18, 2012, 4:00 AM

    It’s at these moments that Romney’s reflexive opposition to anything associated with Obama ceases to make sense. Yes, an incumbent’s partisan opponent will make opportunistic attacks, and it is unavoidable that those attacks will be based on deliberate misrepresentations and distortions of the incumbent’s record. That is the way of things, and it’s generally considered “smart” politics. However, it doesn’t do Romney any favors to go on record to claim that he will be the exact opposite of Obama on Israel. Obama has been fairly conventional in reliably backing Israel on every important issue that doesn’t conflict with longstanding U.S. policy, and even when the Israeli government is at odds with U.S. policy Obama has tended to back down. Romney claims that he would do the opposite of this.

    This is not an exaggeration of Romney’s remarks. According to the report, he said, “Well, I think by in large [sic] you could just look at the things the president’s done and do the opposite.” So under a Romney administration the U.S. would have taken Ankara’s side in the dispute over the flotilla raid? President Romney would have refused to pursue additional sanctions on Iran at the U.N.? Instead of giving up on negotiations with Iran early on, he would have pressed ahead with a policy of engagement? Rather than abandoning the pressure to freeze settlements, Romney would have threatened to cut off aid unless Netanyahu yielded? That’s what “the opposite” of Obama’s Israel policy would actually be. Romney is taking for granted that his intended audience doesn’t know that and doesn’t care, and he’s probably right.

    Romney reiterated his fanatical position on unthinking solidarity with U.S. clients:


    I would not want to show a dime’s worth of distance between ourselves and our allies like Israel. If we have disagreements, we can talk about them, you know, behind closed doors. But to the world, you show that we’re locked arm in arm.

    Yes, because U.S. interests are clearly advanced around the world by reinforcing the perception that there is no meaningful difference between the United States and Israel on any issue. In other words, U.S. interests will take second place to the need to promote a phony common front to the world. Romney certainly knows something about putting forward a phony front. It’s useful to know that Romney’s priorities are still as confused as ever.

    Romney’s bad ideas are not limited only to relations between U.S. and Israel. He has more than enough bad ideas for the entire region to spare. On Syria, he said:


    Instead of watching what’s happening in Syria from a dispassionate distance, I would be leading in Syria by encouraging our friends there like the Turks and the Saudis to prove weapons [sic] to the insurgents in Syria.

    The report doesn’t explain why Romney thinks that encouraging the Saudis to arm a rebel movement is a sign of good leadership. If it tells us anything, it is that Romney is not one to be trusted with making such decisions. It doesn’t seem to occur to Romney that the Saudis don’t need U.S. encouragement to do this, nor does he seem to realize that what the Saudi government desires may not be all together good for American interests