In a week which has seen presidential aspirant Mitt Romney in the doo-doos, and the possibility of him being elected a little harder, in an op-ed piece in The New York Times, Shmuel Rosner -an editor and columnist based in Tel Aviv and a senior political editor for The Jewish Journal - writes that a peace between between the Palestinians and Israelis is likely be even more elusive.
"Palestinians have had their share of disappointment with President Barack Obama, but don’t expect them to be crossing their fingers for a Mitt Romney victory.
On a visit to Israel at the end of July, Romney said that “culture” explains the “difference in economic vitality” between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Palestinian leaders called the comment racist.
Then last week, at the same Florida fundraiser at which he said that 47 percent of Americans are “dependent upon government,” Romney said that the Palestinians have “no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish.”
Predictably, these no-peace predictions earned him some criticism and suspicion. One columnist ventured, “His comments seemed to reflect the views of his billionaire benefactor, Sheldon Adelson, who has pledged $100 million to elect Romney.”
Maybe so. On the other hand, when it comes to estimating the chances for peace, Romney’s view just reflects what most Israelis and Palestinians think.
A poll conducted in June by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found that “majorities among Israelis (71 percent) and Palestinians (68 percent) view the chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state next to Israel in the next five years as low or non-existent.”
That’s also what the vast majority of Jewish Americans believe. In the American Jewish Committee’s 2011 annual survey of Jewish opinion, a whopping 76 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.”
But that is treading into slightly different territory than just gauging the prospects for peace; it’s about guessing, much as Romney has done, at the Palestinians’ intentions. And those, like the intentions of any vast group, can be difficult to assess. According to one poll last year, Palestinians support negotiations with Israel, but by a “2-to-1 margin they also oppose the two-state solution that’s been the stated goal of negotiations,” with most preferring “ending up with a single state” instead. Given many Israelis’ objection to that outcome, to some people, the Palestinians’ preference hardly seems compatible with peace.
Romney’s take on the Palestinian problem is far from extraordinary. But by stating his views so bluntly — and before a bunch of Jewish voters in Florida — he has seriously harmed his ability to talk to the Palestinians. Should he be elected an unlikely peace would become even more unlikely."
"Palestinians have had their share of disappointment with President Barack Obama, but don’t expect them to be crossing their fingers for a Mitt Romney victory.
On a visit to Israel at the end of July, Romney said that “culture” explains the “difference in economic vitality” between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Palestinian leaders called the comment racist.
Then last week, at the same Florida fundraiser at which he said that 47 percent of Americans are “dependent upon government,” Romney said that the Palestinians have “no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish.”
Predictably, these no-peace predictions earned him some criticism and suspicion. One columnist ventured, “His comments seemed to reflect the views of his billionaire benefactor, Sheldon Adelson, who has pledged $100 million to elect Romney.”
Maybe so. On the other hand, when it comes to estimating the chances for peace, Romney’s view just reflects what most Israelis and Palestinians think.
A poll conducted in June by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found that “majorities among Israelis (71 percent) and Palestinians (68 percent) view the chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state next to Israel in the next five years as low or non-existent.”
That’s also what the vast majority of Jewish Americans believe. In the American Jewish Committee’s 2011 annual survey of Jewish opinion, a whopping 76 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.”
But that is treading into slightly different territory than just gauging the prospects for peace; it’s about guessing, much as Romney has done, at the Palestinians’ intentions. And those, like the intentions of any vast group, can be difficult to assess. According to one poll last year, Palestinians support negotiations with Israel, but by a “2-to-1 margin they also oppose the two-state solution that’s been the stated goal of negotiations,” with most preferring “ending up with a single state” instead. Given many Israelis’ objection to that outcome, to some people, the Palestinians’ preference hardly seems compatible with peace.
Romney’s take on the Palestinian problem is far from extraordinary. But by stating his views so bluntly — and before a bunch of Jewish voters in Florida — he has seriously harmed his ability to talk to the Palestinians. Should he be elected an unlikely peace would become even more unlikely."
Comments