ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

A classic gaffe

Mitt Romney commits a classic gaffe by inadvertently stating the obvious:
US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney questioned the feasibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, according to video footage published Tuesday by US magazine Mother Jones.

"I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard," Romney said at a $50,000-per-plate fundraising dinner on May 17. "One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish."
Considering that the Begin-Sadat accord was nearly 40 years ago and there is still no peace in sight, I think that's a safe conclusion. Of course, why should the Palestinians be interested in peace until they get their land back? Israel has a right to the land by right of conquest, but that very right means that they will likely have to fight to hold it.

Labels: ,

70 Comments:

Anonymous Kickass September 18, 2012 3:51 PM  

Thanks for this, my day was off to a boring start. Popcorn here please! First!

Anonymous Stilicho September 18, 2012 3:51 PM  

It's one of the 7 classic gaffes...the most famous of which is: never fight a get-out-the-vote war in Detroit...

Anonymous robh September 18, 2012 3:53 PM  

Funny. I thought the referenced gaffe was the one about stating the obvious that Obama has a lock on the govt dependency vote.

Anonymous Feh September 18, 2012 3:55 PM  

"Israel has a right to the land by right of conquest, but that very right means that they will likely have to fight to hold it."

In fact, this is the path to peace -- America gets out of the way and lets the two sides smack each other around until one side submits or is annihilated. The "peace process" just keeps them poised, hating each other, at each other's throats forever.

Blogger vandelay September 18, 2012 4:01 PM  

Is this the first time you've agreed with Romney?

It's funny that this comment is getting so much less play than the "47 per cent" business. It's also funny that the first time we've actually heard him say something honest (if politically suicidal) marks the point at which NRO has decided to start distancing itself from his inevitable failure, after pushing as hard as it could for him through the primaries.

"The overall impression of Romney at this event is of someone who overheard some conservative cocktail chatter and maybe read a conservative blog or two, and is thoughtlessly repeating back what he heard and read."
-Rich Lowry
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/322478/romneys-comment-rich-lowry

Anonymous Porky? September 18, 2012 4:07 PM  

He will lose.

Blogger David September 18, 2012 4:15 PM  

If he keeps this up he might just get enough conservatives to tip the scale in his favor to win the election.

Anonymous steve g September 18, 2012 4:20 PM  

Unfortunately, after WWII the world
community deemed it appropriate to give
back lands obtained during a war. Geneva? In this
case UN. resolution 242. If anyone does not
believe the UN has this right so be it. If
that is the case then Israel is a false construct
as it was also created by the UN in 48.

Anonymous dh September 18, 2012 4:20 PM  

> was the one about stating the obvious that Obama has a lock on the govt dependency vote.

This vote basically doesn't exist. Government benefits other than Social Security is a fantastic counter-indicator to likely-voter status.

Blogger Joshua_D September 18, 2012 4:25 PM  

steve g, God gave the Israelis that land! The UN just had to help God out a bit, that's all.

Anonymous Azimus September 18, 2012 4:51 PM  

Joshua_D September 18, 2012 4:25 PM steve g, God gave the Israelis that land! The UN just had to help God out a bit, that's all.

Change out UN for UK/US and you're not too far from the truth. That the UN "approved" it means no more than my grandfather approving it.

Anonymous TLM September 18, 2012 4:52 PM  

I like the to watch the Israel is Awesome "churchianity" types get flustered when they're educated to the fact that at least 10% (300,000+) of the Palestinians are Christians. It doesn't change anything, but it's amusing to listen to them fantasize about modern Israel (which doesn't even allow Christian proselytizing) going in and kicking ass in Gaza & the West Bank. "God gave them that land"...blah, blah, blah. It will also also be interesting to see how Mitt's Mormon worldview will effect his foreign policies if elected.

Anonymous 43rd Virginia Calalry September 18, 2012 5:09 PM  

Remember when Ann Coulter got in deep do-do for saying "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" ? Only reasonable solution that I have heard.

Anonymous Cheddarman September 18, 2012 5:16 PM  

"Unfortunately, after WWII the world
community deemed it appropriate to give
back lands obtained during a war. Geneva? In this
case UN. resolution 242. If anyone does not
believe the UN has this right so be it. If
that is the case then Israel is a false construct
as it was also created by the UN in 48." - steve g

The fact that Israel has the best armed forces in the region, and can annihilate any and all Arab nations in the vicinity, would seem to trump this astute observation

Anonymous Just Mark September 18, 2012 5:20 PM  

God gave the land directly to Isreal by covenant. This is very well documented in the Bible.

Let the Muzzies try and grab it. I'm going to get a Big Gulp and a bucket of popcorn so I can watch the miracle live on FOX.

He who keeps Isreal neither slumbers no sleeps.

Oh and those 10% Christians who are Palestinians ... well just give the Muzzies time they'll get around to murdering them too.

Should be interesting to watch the Egyptian holocaust over the next few years as those peace lovin' Muzzies murder the Copts with impunity because of (insert excuse de jure here). What's another 8 mil anyway but a stat.

As for me I say we start by vaporizing that big ass black rock in Mecca. Let 5 become 4.

Anonymous Cheddarman September 18, 2012 5:24 PM  

I wonder what will happen to Israel after the U.S. can no longer borrow money from China, Japan and the rest of the productive nations of the world, and pay Israel and her Arab neighbors and near neighbors not to fight each other.

Will the Jews hold out or be driven out?

Anonymous David September 18, 2012 5:26 PM  

I still think Vox's relocate the Israelis to San Diego solution is the most sure way to peace.

Anonymous Anonymous September 18, 2012 5:27 PM  

Quick name one strip of land that hasn't been taken by conquest?

Anonymous Outlaw X September 18, 2012 5:45 PM  

Why should I have to get up and go vote just to get my check? Involuntary servitude.

Anonymous Outlaw X September 18, 2012 5:48 PM  

"Quick name one strip of land that hasn't been taken by conquest?"

Rosie O'Donnell.

Anonymous jay c September 18, 2012 5:50 PM  

Feh wrote, "Israel has a right to the land by right of conquest, but that very right means that they will likely have to fight to hold it."

In fact, this is the path to peace -- America gets out of the way and lets the two sides smack each other around until one side submits or is annihilated. The "peace process" just keeps them poised, hating each other, at each other's throats forever.


Indeed. I am pro-Israel--a Zionist even--but I completely agree. The Israel vs Palestine question is not America's concern. If God is with Israel, then let them settle it. If he is not, then let the Palestinians settle it. Either way, our own government should stay out of it.

Anonymous Azimus September 18, 2012 5:54 PM  

ZT September 18, 2012 5:27 PM
Quick name one strip of land that hasn't been taken by conquest?


See the word "polder"

Also Iceland

Others?

Anonymous jay c September 18, 2012 5:54 PM  

"Quick name one strip of land that hasn't been taken by conquest?"

Rosie O'Donnell.


Has anyone ever fought a war to force someone else to take a piece of land?

Blogger dienw September 18, 2012 5:57 PM  

Manhattan.
I'll sell you New Jersey for twenty glass beads.

Blogger Desert Cat September 18, 2012 6:03 PM  

Why San Diego? Let them have south Florida. They own much of it already.

Blogger Desert Cat September 18, 2012 6:04 PM  

Why San Diego? Let them have south Florida. They own much of it already.

Blogger Giraffe September 18, 2012 6:06 PM  

Rosie O'Donnell.

Obi-Wan: That's no moon. It's a space station.

Anonymous Josh September 18, 2012 6:06 PM  

God gave the land directly to Isreal by covenant. This is very well documented in the Bible.

What are you using as working definitions of "land" and "Israel?"

Anonymous WaterBoy September 18, 2012 6:26 PM  

ZT: "Quick name one strip of land that hasn't been taken by conquest?"

The Toledo Strip.

Anonymous Cheddarman September 18, 2012 7:20 PM  

I still think Vox's relocate the Israelis to San Diego solution is the most sure way to peace. -David

Then the Jews would be fighting the Mexicans over land and water, not the Arabs

Blogger JohnG September 18, 2012 7:40 PM  

"Israel has a right to the land by right of conquest, but that very right means that they will likely have to fight to hold it." Vox

Whatever dude. I'm still waiting for the Italians to pay me some reparations for what the Romans did to Germania and my poor relatives.

Anonymous zen0 September 18, 2012 8:02 PM  

Unfortunately, after WWII the world
community deemed it appropriate to give
back lands obtained during a war.

- steve g

Really? Can you supply a reference? Does it include land that was reconquered after being taken in a previous war?

Don't get stuck on 1948, steve g. The process involving the League of Nations and Britain began after WW1.



Anonymous Tom O September 18, 2012 8:04 PM  

God gave the land directly to Isreal by covenant. This is very well documented in the Bible.

You forgot the part that God required Israel to uphold his part of the covenant, namely, that Israel had to keep all the commandments of the Lord. As the prophets testify, they never came close.

That being said, Israel still deserves the land, only because they will use it better than the Arabs.

Anonymous TLM September 18, 2012 8:06 PM  

Just Mark

See 70AD.
And try reading Josephus instead of the Left Behind series.

Anonymous WaterBoy September 18, 2012 8:12 PM  

ZT: "Quick name one strip of land that hasn't been taken by conquest?"

Also, Antarctica and the entire Moon.

Blogger James Dixon September 18, 2012 8:16 PM  

> Remember when Ann Coulter got in deep do-do for saying "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" ? Only reasonable solution that I have heard.

It's the modern equivalent of the Roman way. Kill the men and sell the women and children into slavery. It works, which is more than you can say for most methods.

> Quick name one strip of land that hasn't been taken by conquest?

Antarctica.

> Has anyone ever fought a war to force someone else to take a piece of land?

The SCA, at least according to legend.

According to the HERSTAĐR-SAGA: An Incomplete History of Pennsic,

"One day, almost 30 years ago, Cariadoc of the Bow, the King of the Middle, got bored with peace and declared war upon the East, loser to take Pittsburgh..."

Blogger James Dixon September 18, 2012 8:17 PM  

Ah, I see Waterboy beat me to it.

Blogger Fred September 18, 2012 8:50 PM  

I dont think it was a gaffe it was the truth. Its rarely spoken so when a politician says during a campaign, its so shocking people fall over, get up and scream 'he hates the poor'. Humbug.

Anonymous JohnS September 18, 2012 9:06 PM  

Fred, maybe you've heard it said that a "gaffe" is when a politician accidentally utters the truth? I bet his handlers are worried about their future job prospects hitching on to the next up and coming sociopath...

Anonymous Just Mark September 18, 2012 9:28 PM  

At Josh. Google Promised Land Map. Read Genesis the blood line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (aka) Isreal.

At TLM wait for the millenium ... if you're not flame fodder ... 69 weeks down one to go.

At Tom O. I am fully aware of 2 chron 7:14. if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

At everyone ... why would anyone waste their time reading Left Behind? Good grief.

Anonymous dh September 18, 2012 9:35 PM  

> The fact that Israel has the best armed forces in the region, and can annihilate any and all Arab
> nations in the vicinity, would seem to trump this astute observation

This is a joke, right?

Short of full scale nuclear destruction, it is a fair bet that Israel would not prosper in a war against Iran. Clearly, Israel is very potent, but they have neither the economic output, man power, or political will to fight a long war against Iran. The current older generation in Iran remembers a long war of attrition with Iraq.

Israel has this fantasy of a Lebannon like war of choice of with Iran, and it's completely silly. Iran, if attacked, will react in unpredictable and most likely deadly. Plus, don't rule asymetric warfare against Israel's backers, namely, the United States.

Anonymous zen0 September 18, 2012 9:48 PM  

Short of full scale nuclear destruction, it is a fair bet that Israel would not prosper in a war against Iran. Clearly, Israel is very potent, but they have neither the economic output, man power, or political will to fight a long war against Iran.

The man specifically referred to Arab Nations. Iranians aren't Arabs.

Anonymous Other Josh September 18, 2012 9:52 PM  

In the Jewish/Arab conflict there will be no peace until one of the two groups is completely destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth.

Both sides are descendants from Abraham - the Jews from Isaac and the Arabs from Ishmael. Both believe they are God's chosen people. Both believe they have right to Jerusalem. They've been in conflict since the Old Testament.

At the end of the book of Revelation in the Bible, I see alot of Jews, but I don't see any Arab peoples. Gee. I wonder which one loses?

Anonymous Other Josh September 18, 2012 9:54 PM  

zen0, true dat. Iranians are descendants from the Persian Empire.

Anonymous Other Josh September 18, 2012 9:56 PM  

Is a gaffe a verbal boner?

Anonymous zen0 September 18, 2012 10:07 PM  

Is a gaffe a verbal boner?

I am rendered speechless.

Anonymous JaimeInTexas September 18, 2012 10:29 PM  

Israel possession of the land is conditional, as someone else already pointed out. Search possession of the land, or similar phrases, in your favorite Bible study resource. So, Israel, where is your king that your elders demanded of the Lord, in accordance to Deuteronomy, and documrntrd by the prophet Samuel?

Also, if memory serves me right, there were/are Jews that believe that true Israel is to reestablished by Messiah. Of course, their Messiah is not the same as the Christian's.

Anonymous zen0 September 18, 2012 10:46 PM  

Of course, their Messiah is not the same as the Christian's.

He is. They just don't know it yet.

Blogger Unknown September 18, 2012 10:52 PM  


Therefore, if you want to get the best when buying Timberland Boots for fall 2012, will be always best to take these tips mentioned above. There is certainly no need to look any further. To ensure that you are able to get the best benefits of the research are to get online and offline. It's certainly nothing worth the wait. Make sure you are able to get into the store to help you get the best Timberland for the fall of 2012.

Anonymous Colon Curious September 18, 2012 11:02 PM  

Make sure you are able to get into the store to help you get the best Timberland for the fall of 2012.

Can we get a free matching colostomy bag with that?

Blogger IM2L844 September 19, 2012 12:33 AM  

In Genesis 13:15: "for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever."

Genesis 15:18: "To your descendants I have given this land."

Genesis 17:7-8: "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. And I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojourning, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

Psalm 89:30-37: "If his sons forsake My law, and do not walk in My judgments, if they violate My statues, and do not keep My commandments, then I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. But I will not break off My loving kindness from him, nor deal falsely in My faithfulness. My covenant I will not violate, nor will I alter the utterance of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David. His descendants shall endure forever like the moon, and the witness in the sky is faithful."

Jeremiah 31:35-36: "This is what the Lord says, 'He who appoints the sun to shine by day, Who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar -- the Lord Almighty is His Name; Only if these ordinances vanish from My sight,' declares the Lord, 'will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before Me.'"

there's much more, but I see nothing ambiguous or equivocal abut anythingthis issue.

In any event, I think God is perfectly capable of handling all this Himself without any interventions from me keeping it all sorted out.

Anonymous Josh September 19, 2012 1:16 AM  

So...since all Christians are descended from Abraham (per Hebrews), does this give me an equal claim to Israel?

Anonymous Josh September 19, 2012 1:18 AM  

At Josh. Google Promised Land Map. Read Genesis the blood line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (aka) Isreal.

So everything from the Nile to the Euphrates belongs to the bloodline of Abraham? Aren't Arabs part of that bloodline through Ishmael? And Christians through Jesus?

Anonymous David September 19, 2012 1:44 AM  

I still think Vox's relocate the Israelis to San Diego solution is the most sure way to peace. -David

"Then the Jews would be fighting the Mexicans over land and water, not the Arabs"

Or the Jews would just hire the Mexicans to do all the work they were doing before...

Vox's article is on WND here...
http://www.wnd.com/2010/06/163217/

Anonymous Just Mark September 19, 2012 3:54 AM  

At Josh

That's my understanding East bank of the Nile to the west bank of the Euphrates during the milenium. Because it isn't happening before then.

The line of inheritance clearly goes through Jacob and his 12 sons. Not Abrahams children be his second wife, Ishmael or Esau.

My perception (I am not being dogmatic) is that Isreal and the Church are two lamps from which the light of God shines forth. Isreal has it's place and the Church has their's.

On Isreal.

If we go against them God will hammer us.

If we go with them God will honor that.

If we do nothing but say I'm sure God can deal with that ... God will. But as a nation I'm not confident this is a wise choice. Read Obadiah (very short book)

Back Isreal to the hilt. It's the obvious choice.

Anonymous FrankNorman September 19, 2012 4:36 AM  

Other Josh September 18, 2012 9:52 PM

In the Jewish/Arab conflict there will be no peace until one of the two groups is completely destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth.

Both sides are descendants from Abraham - the Jews from Isaac and the Arabs from Ishmael. Both believe they are God's chosen people. Both believe they have right to Jerusalem. They've been in conflict since the Old Testament.

At the end of the book of Revelation in the Bible, I see alot of Jews, but I don't see any Arab peoples. Gee. I wonder which one loses?


I don't know what the Arabs ever did to you, but in the Book of Revelation there are people from every tribe and tongue and nation before the Throne of God.

Anonymous Luke September 19, 2012 5:55 AM  

Frank, the only Arabs to get a post-croaking thumbs-up from God will be those who completely abandon Islam (as part of embracing Jesus) before death. Not likely to be many of those, especially in this day of WMDs.

Some years ago I read a logical analysis of WMDs used by Muslim terrorists against the West with resultant military retaliation by the West, followed by back-and-forth escalation. The West took the fewest losses (had the most optimal outcome) if upon initiation of WMD by Muslims, it avoided tit-for-tat back and forth escalation, and immediately proceeded to the bottom line, e.g., mass use of its WMD (predominantly but not solely nuclear weapons?) to kill as many Muslims possible worldwide. Potentially, 75% of Muslims on the planet could be killed within 72 hours.

How many of them would we really miss? If separation of those killing us from the mass of Muslims (that produces them, supports them, and conceals them) were impossible, if we wanted to live, that bottom line might be the way to go, morally as well as WRT utility.

Anonymous E. PERLINE September 19, 2012 8:39 AM  

Israel, living on a minimum of land, is capable of taking more land from the Arabs, but it dares not.

Every US administration was willing to contribute foreign aid to the perennial victim but it will not allow Israel to expand into the useless vastness around it.

I used to think anti-semitism was the reason, but now I think it's guilt for being a Christian.

Anonymous MendoScot September 19, 2012 9:17 AM  

Change out UN for UK/US and you're not too far from the truth. That the UN "approved" it means no more than my grandfather approving it.

Well put, Azimus, although I would substitute "my grandson's kindergarden class" for "grandfather".

Anonymous DonReynolds September 19, 2012 10:04 AM  

If you live by the sword, you will surely die by the sword. If you come to power by coup, then you will fall from power by the same coup later. If your land and your treasure were won by conquest, there is every reason to expect the same in the future. Has it every been any different?

Anonymous DonReynolds September 19, 2012 10:05 AM  

If you live by the sword, you will surely die by the sword. If you come to power by coup, then you will fall from power by the same coup later. If your land and your treasure were won by conquest, there is every reason to expect the same in the future. Has it ever been any different?

Blogger Rhology September 19, 2012 10:58 AM  

ZT:
Quick name one strip of land that hasn't been taken by conquest?

LOL.
ZT for the win.

Anonymous jmac September 19, 2012 12:13 PM  

So we have a new definition of gaffe: a statement, whether true or not, that challenges the liberal frame of mind. Such a statement is considered sub-intelligent simply because it isn't believed by the king and his entourage to be true.

But Romney didn't go far enough. Any reading of the facts that goes back more that 8 hours (try 60 years) shows that the so-called Palestinians don't want land. They have no clue what to do with it. They want Jews dead, end of story. The "Palestinians" have been the pawn of Muslim nations since 1948. Read The Haj.

Anonymous Josh September 19, 2012 12:30 PM  

On Isreal. If we go against them God will hammer us.If we go with them God will honor that.

Where is your proof in the Christian era?

Lots of folks conquered Israel (Romans, Arabs, Christians, Turks, etc).

How did God hammer them?

Anonymous WaterBoy September 19, 2012 2:01 PM  

Rhology: "LOL.
ZT for the win.
"


And Rhology for the reading fail.

Anonymous paradox September 19, 2012 5:45 PM  

Just Mark September 19, 2012 3:54 AM

On Isreal. If we go against them God will hammer us.


Oh please... The Church is Israel now and Israel has always been those who believe in God. Jews today do not believe in Jesus Christ. If a Jew accepts Jesus as savior, then they join true Israel.

OLD TESTAMENT TITLES AND ATTRIBUTES OF ISRAEL WHICH ARE, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, REFERRED TO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Anonymous zen0 September 19, 2012 11:38 PM  

It is too late to join Spiritual Israel now. Even when the Jews recognize the true Moshiach,they will still only be presented with the original promises as embodied in what has been termed the Minor Prophets.. They are not lesser but instead are focused on earthly prophesies rather than the transcendent prophesies regarding Jesus and the Church.

Woe be unto him who considers the promises of God to be either arbitrary or barren.

Anonymous zen0 September 19, 2012 11:57 PM  

Where is your proof in the Christian era?

Here's the trick, Josh. The Christian era ended during World War One.

Israel as a state power in its homeland abides. This, as you so rightly point out, was impossible previously. Now it is a fact. You must adjust your world view to the new reality.

Anonymous Grinder September 20, 2012 4:55 AM  

Israel's only claim to the land is conquest. The jews of today are masquerading as the Chosen People. They are now almost entirely atheists or followers of Babylonian Talmud Pharisaism. Christ pointed them out for what they were and are : ...of their father, the Devil.
Many people are aware of the jews and their lies. Kol Nidre is not a myth it is a real ritual of modern jewry. Jews don't speak of it but when confronted with it attempt to explain it away as only meant for individual jews to avoid inadvertantly breaking oaths they may have innocently forgotten but would never be used to break contracts, lie or steal.
The following is an English translation of the Kol Nidre prayer:

"All vows, obligations, oaths or anathemas, pledges of all names, which we have vowed, sworn, devoted, or bound ourselves to, from this day of atonement, until the next day of atonement (whose arrival we hope for in happiness) we repent, aforehand, of them all, they shall all be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, void and made of no effect; they shall not be binding, nor have any power; the vows shall not be reckoned as vows, the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths considered as oaths."


Notice, there is nothing there that says this only applies to oaths taken to encourage oneself to proper conduct and that oaths involving two or more parties are exempt from this ritual of annulment as jews claim when confronted. I should just take their word for it, right? Wrong.

Anonymous Anonymous September 21, 2012 7:52 PM  

I am only an occasional visitor (or lurker I guess) at this blog, but I can't resist the temptation to throw this one in...

I can't believe no one else jumped on this:

At 9/18/12 5:27 pm, ZT asked: Quick name one strip of land that hasn't been taken by conquest?

At 9/18/12 5:48 pm, Outlaw X replied: Rosie O'Donnell

All the way down the thread, I was looking for the obvious response:

Rosie O' Donnell is not a "strip of land", she is an obnoxious, ignorant, contumacious tub of lard that no one in their right mind would ever want to "occupy". No normal person could get drunk enough to "occupy" her without perishing from alcohol poisoning first. Unlike Rosie O'Donnell, a "strip of land" is something that might be desirable, and that one might want to fight over.

Posting as "Anonymous", but signing off as,

Rocky Mountain Boy

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts