Mitt Romney accuses Obama of throwing Israel "under the bus"

Mitt Romney.

/ AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Mitt Romney on Thursday accused President Obama of having "thrown Israel under the bus" during a major foreign policy speech on the Middle East. 

In his remarks, Mr. Obama called for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine and argued that Israel's 1967 borders should roughly guide the formation of a Palestinian state, though some land could be swapped. He also said that, following an agreement, Israel should begin to phase out the presence of its forces from the West Bank.

Romney, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, said Obama had breached a "first principal of American foreign policy" by suggesting the shift.

"President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus," Romney said. "He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends."

Obama: America's future bound to Middle East
Obama backs Palestinians' 1967 border claims
Obama to Syria's Assad: Democracy or leave
President Obama's Middle East speech (full text)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is headed to Washington on Friday for a meeting with Mr. Obama, also rejected the president's position, saying in a statement following Mr. Obama's speech that a return to his country's 1967 borders would spell disaster for the Jewish state. (Netanyahu will also speak at a conference for the pro-Israel lobbyist group AIPAC while he is in Washington, and Mr. Obama plans to speak to the group Sunday. AIPAC declined to comment for this story.)

Netanyahu said via Facebook on Thursday that he "expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004" - including "Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines."

While the 1967 borders have been a frequent point of discussion in previous peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine, some say Mr. Obama's comments reflect the strongest endorsement of those borders by a U.S. president.

"This is the first clear statement by an American president that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be resolved based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed territorial swaps," former Rep. Robert Wexler, of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, told Politico.

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Mr. Obama's call for renewed peace talks reflected the administration's "confused and dangerous foreign policy."

"Today, President Obama renewed the backing of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and called for a Palestinian state, again," Santorum said in a statement Thursday afternoon, "This, at a time when the Palestinian Authority and Hamas just forged a new alliance. The current Administration needs to come to terms with its confused and dangerous foreign policy soon, as clarity and security are the necessary conditions of any serious and coherent American set of policies."

And Tim Pawlenty, another GOP presidential candidate, called the proposal to return to 1967 lines a "mistaken and very dangerous demand." 

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, meanwhile, argued that Mr. Obama's plan "undermines our special relationship with Israel and weakens our ally's ability to defend itself."

"The President's habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace," he said in a statement on Thursday.

The Wall Street Journal reports that some Jewish donors have warned the president's re-election campaign that he is at risk of losing their support as a result of what is being read as an overly tough stance on Israel.

"One top Democratic fund-raiser, Miami developer Michael Adler, said he urged Obama campaign manager Jim Messina to be 'extremely proactive' in countering the perception in the Jewish community that Mr. Obama is too critical of Israel," writes the WSJ's Laura Meckler.

A number of Jewish groups have responded positively to Mr. Obama's remarks - particularly in light of his comments calling for a non-militarized Palestinian state and denouncing Palestinian efforts "to delegitimize Israel."

"We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state," said the Anti-Defamation League's Robert Sugarman and Abraham Foxman. "We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel."

David Harris, the Executive Director of the American Jewish committee, also praised the call for revived negotiations.

"President Obama has sternly warned the Palestinians, and the international community, to stop this senseless drive to try to achieve a state without any negotiated agreement with Israel," he said on Thursday. "The parameters of a two-state solution are just as clear today as they were when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas walked away from the peace talks last September...The Palestinians must return now to close the deal."

J Street, a pro-Israel, pro-peace organization, added that it "wholeheartedly endorses" the president's proposal.

"[Mr. Obama] is correct in saying that Israel will only find security through granting the Palestinian people their freedom, and the Palestinian people will only achieve freedom if Israel finds security," said J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami in a Thursday statement.

And Noah Pollak, the executive director for the Emergency Committee for Israel, said via Twitter that Mr. Obama's remarks should come as no shock to Netanyahu.

"I don't think there's anything in this speech that Netanyahu will find surprising or even disagreeable," he Tweeted.

"If someone had said to me yesterday, 'you'll be defending Obama on Israel tomorrow' I would have laughed," Pollak added.

[AmericanVoter1]

Hard to believe CBS actually perpetuates such garbage coming from romney - someone who's already repeatedly proven to have no foreign policy aptitude, or skills. Every time romney opens his mouth he puts his foot in it. Gaff after Gaff. Either that, or he's misrepresenting the Truth.. Would You want someone like him representing the United States of America?

[deadbankers]

Who cares?Throw Pakistan and the rest of the Middle East with them. All these countries are nothing but traitors that want to suckle at the US ***. None of them have been good for the US. Dealing with the Middle East is just a mess. Create our own energy and stop having Americans die for any of these countries.

[Bulls42]

Imagine in the current time if France would want to create its own state in Michigan and separate it from the U.S. French are a minority in Michigan so democratic vote on the separation would not work because they would be outvoted by the rest of the Americans living in Michigan. So imagine if they had a historic opportunity when the U.S. is at its weakest and militarily occupy a part of Michigan and impose a regime where only French can vote and all the others who lived there cannot. Furthermore, the occupiers rename the occupied part of Michigan as the "French State" where not only that Americans are not welcome, but they are systematically expelled over time creating huge refugee camps in nearby states of Indiana and Ohio. Imagine then that at that point in history the artificial organization called the United Nations is full of French supporters and somehow that makes the occupation "legal" and Americans who fight for their homes in the occupied part of Michigan are labeled as terrorists. The occupation is a part of a careful log-term plan (i.e. Zionism) of acquiring land by French, so literally days after the occupation is implemented (what a coordinated plan!) the occupiers import millions of other French from all over the world to increase their population in Michigan from around 100,000 to over 5 Million in a short period. Then Americans resist and fight to regain the occupied part of Michigan, but Russia steps in, sends weapons, cash, and everything else the occupiers need to sustain the occupation.

What do you think all of us Americans would feel? We would hate French first, and then all of their supporters (Russia in this analogy) that make the occupation of our land possible. Still questioning yourself why people in the Middle East and other parts of the world do not like us? Because our Zionist controlled government, not the people, supported the very exact scenario as described above against our will and with our tax money making us accomplices in this unspeakable crime. The scenario that would outrage all of us Americans and make us fight against it if it happened in Michigan or anywhere else in the U.S.

This comment is not intended to make derogatory remarks about France and Russia. It is merely used as an example of how Americans would be outraged and fight back in the same situation as the forced establishment of the Zionist regime and its occupation of Palestine.
Urge your state representatives and senators to immediately stop any remaining support for the Zionist regime. Much of the support already stopped because of the increasing pressure on this issue, but we Americans need to completely distance ourselves from this oppressive regime and start actively opposing it.

It appears that sharing and reposting others' comments is becoming a trend. You can definitely copy, repost, or email mine to anyone including lobbying senators, state representatives and any other public officials who shape our country's foreign policies.

[GeeZee9]

It appears that sharing and reposting others' comments is becoming a trend. You can definitely copy, repost, or email mine to anyone including lobbying senators, state representatives and any other public officials who shape our country's foreign policies.

The main Zionist claim is that they have a supreme right to some of Palestinian territory because they lived there thousands of years ago. Let's examine the core and real nature of this claim.
Firstly, this claim is mistaken and selfish in its core concept because Zionists fail to recognize that history is a continuum and that there were other people living in majority in Palestine before the Jews and also after the Jews. Zionists simply cut history at a convenient point for them and claim ancestral ties to the land as of that convenient point.
Secondly, whatever the claim, it is beyond absurd to try to shape modern world based on thousands of years old maps. Imagine if the rest of the world would be reshaped by who was on the land thousands of years ago. It would cause horrific wars, countless refugees, and unimaginable human suffering, exactly what is happening in Palestine.

Thirdly and most disturbing, Zionist goal was to establish a Jewish state wherever possible. Palestine may have been a preference, but Palestine was not the only location that Zionists planned as their state in modern times. Another location was Argentina where Jews have been migrating for hundreds of years for the purpose of establishing a state. Also, locations in Europe were on the list and that's why the Catholic Church was killing/expelling Jews since Roman times (read the history of the Holly Inquisition). Whatever the location, Zionist plan was to simply occupy the people living on the land even if that would mean imposing a regime worst than Nazi Germany's from which they escaped. And Zionists would just use a different ideological coloring than the one used in Palestine in the attempt to rationalize the occupation.

In conclusion, the main claim on which the Zionist regime is built in Palestine is erroneous, selfish, and a lie. I am categorically against generalizing, and recognize that many Jews are against the crimes the Zionist regime is committing and that many Jews are leading the global resistance to it. They should be proud.

[BorderOne]

If it is ever reached, the current and any other artificial "peace agreement" will be illegitimate before it is ever signed because (1) all people living in Palestine regardless of religion, race, origin, etc. (hereinafter "All People of Palestine") were never given a choice on how they want their land to be governed, and (2) all contracts signed under duress are null and void.
The biggest problem in Palestine is that the Zionist regime never offered a choice to All People of Palestine on how they want to govern their land because the Zionist regime cannot exist as a democratic entity. If there was ever any democratic process in Palestine, Zionists would have been outvoted and the Zionist regime would have never existed. That is why the Zionist regime is the occupier because it does not offer choice (i.e. democracy), but instead imposes its regime (i.e. occupies). Imagine if Russians would simply occupy a town in the U.S. where they are in significant numbers and attempt to create a Russian state there without giving the rest of the Americans living there a choice. Imagine then if they would try to institute a "peace agreement" that would attempt to legitimize their occupation. The "peace agreement" would logically and legally be illegitimate because the Americans were not given a choice.

Under all countries' laws, any contract is null and void if it is signed under duress. The current Palestine "peace agreement" process reminds me of The Godfather movie where the mafia boss (i.e. the Zionist regime) made a guy "an offer he could not refuse" by placing a gun (i.e. Zionist conventional and nuclear arsenal) to his head and making him sign the contract. Like the mafia boss' offer, any "peace agreement" other than the choice for All People of Palestine is a crime, and the contract is legally null and void.

The bottom line is that All People of Palestine never wanted to divide their land into artificial two states the way the occupation and this "peace agreement" attempt to divide it. From the beginning of the Zionist regime to its unavoidable end, All People of Palestine and the region never wanted the Zionist regime and they do not want it even more after all the atrocities the Zionist regime committed. I just cannot believe how the Zionist regime can be so ignorant to think that this or any other "peace agreement" that does not allow people to choose how they want to be governed will last and ensure its people's survival. The Zionist regime fails to realize that no matter if it succeeds in muscling this "peace agreement" by unspeakable historic coercion tens of millions of moral people around the world will oppose it until it is corrected, and until justice and free choice prevail. Also, ever increasing number of Jewish people are realizing that Zionism is becoming a destructive force for them and are leading the global resistance to it.
P.S. feel free to copy this comment, email it to other bloggers, and repost it on other blogs, newspaper websites, Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking websites, and include it in any correspondence/lobbying with senators, state representatives and any other public officials so the public learns the truth&

[Cave_West]

The only solution for a lasting peace is absolute democratic process (that we Americans cherish so passionately) for the entire territory in question, otherwise, the peace will not last. All people who lived there without regard to religion, race, etc. should vote on how they would like their one country to be run. I favor one state solution because two states would only attempt to "legalize" Zionist occupation that will be remembered in history until it is corrected by future large scale conflicts, so no lasting peace will result.
The only issue with the fair democratic process is what to do with all manipulated Jewish people who the Zionist regime imported for decades to increase the Jewish population from around 100,000 to over 5 Million since the start of the occupation. This is obviously an attempt to unjustly manipulate any future democratic process by forcefully increasing the occupier's population at the expense of others. Any compromise other than the absolute fair democratic process with no manipulated population will be temporary with terrible conflicts looming to correct it in the future.
The truth is that the Zionist regime will not accept any democratic process even if the manipulated Jewish population is included because it cannot exist as a democratic country as Zionists will be outvoted by all others who live there (Zionists were in an infinite minority before the occupation). The Zionist regime can only temporarily exist through the force of its arms as a one people country where only select ones can vote and where different laws apply to different people.
The world must stand up against the Zionist regime by cutting all diplomatic and economic relations with it. Many countries have already stopped all relations with the Zionist regime and others are in the process of doing the same. We Americans need to completely distance ourselves from this oppressive regime through urging our state representatives and senators to do what the rest of the world is doing.

[bgbutler1959]

I am a staunch Republican from the great state of Texas. Never in my life have I been so offended by an Israeli Prime Minister lecturing an American President and what did you have to say, "Israel was thrown under the bus." How dare you!
All politics aside, we are the ONLY reliable friend Israel has at the moment. Where would they be without our economic aid? You are an Israel supporter because of the fundmentalist Christian supporters, I am NOT. I was one of your strongest supporters, but now you can forget it. Stay in Massachusetts, we don't want you in Texas. STOP ALL SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL NOW.

[1pheasant1]

Mitt had a vision where God commanded him to walk up a certain hill and dig up the earth. Mitt did as he was commanded, and low and behold, he found a map of what God wanted Israels borders to be. He was told by God to not show this map to anybody, but to disclose its contents to his followers when he became president.

[formrusmcsgt]

Mitt is an extremist, obviously.

Taking a realistic, centrist stand equates to "throwing Israel under the bus".

Shows how radical Mitt's views are, eh?

[johnnieonenote]

I am sick of the Jews and the Palestinians. That's all I have heard over the past 60 years. Lets arm them both equally and may the best one win.