Why Palestinian Arabs will never negotiate on “return” (HaLevi)
I’ve been arguing for a while that the “right of return” is the means by which the Arab world is seeking to destroy Israel, and that this can be seen by the lack of any hint of flexibility on the Arab side about the matter even though Western diplomats always assume that it can be taken care of in a peace agreement.
A very important article by Jonathan Dahoah HaLevi for JCPA that explains how the PLO plans to keep the “right of return” alive even after a state would be established, no matter what is agreed. His summary:
The gap between Israel and the Palestinians on the refugee question cannot be reconciled. The Palestinians demand a “just peace,” which implies recognition of the right of return according to their interpretation, and rejects any compromise on the issue.
The Palestinian position, which receives support from Palestinian and even some Israeli human rights organizations, looks to UN resolutions that uphold the right of return as a “private right” of every refugee. This means that the representatives of the Palestinian people (as well as the Arab League and the United Nations) have no authority to waive this right in the name of the refugees.
According to the Palestinian consensus, non-implementation of the right of return will leave open the gates of the conflict with Israel. This implies justification for the continued armed struggle against Israel even following the establishment of a Palestinian state.
By rejecting “patriation” or the resettlement of the refugees in any Arab state, the Arab Peace Initiative essentially leaves each refugee with no choice but to go to Israel itself. The Arab states rejected any solution that involves “resettling [of the Palestinians] outside of their homes.”The Arab Peace Initiative does not envision the Palestinian refugees being resettled in a West Bank and Gaza Palestinian state.
The transfer of border crossings to Palestinian control and/or the establishment of a Palestinian state is likely to bring about a wave of immigration, combined with a mass expulsion of Palestinians (primarily from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan) toward the Palestinian territory even without a political agreement on the refugee issue. This could lead to the infiltration by Palestinians into Israeli territory, as well as legal claims by refugees at the International Court in The Hague for the right of return, restitution of property, and compensation.
Since the Israeli consensus holds that the mass return of Palestinian refugees to Israel means national suicide, Israel will require robust international support in negotiations on a final status agreement to reach an accord on the basis of defensible borders, and to find a permanent solution to the refugee problem based primarily on the Palestinian refugees receiving citizenship in their host countries or their absorption in a Palestinian state.
HaLevi shows exhaustively that even the most “pragmatic” and “moderate” of Palestinian Arab leaders insist on the “right of return” – and the destruction of the Jewish state:
The positions of prominent Palestinian personalities, considered by the West as belonging to the moderate political current, do not deviate from the consensus with regards to the right of return. Marwan Barghouti, head of Fatah in the West Bank who is serving a life prison sentence for the murder of Israeli civilians, said in an interview with the newspaper Al Hayat on September 28, 2007, that negotiations with the Israeli government prior to its commitment to principles [including the right of return] is “useless.” Barghouti added that it would be erroneous to conduct negotiations with Israel “without it [Israel] obligating itself to the legitimate international decisions, the principle of concluding the occupation, withdrawal to the ‘67 boundaries including from east Jerusalem, the right of return of the refugees in accordance with Resolution 194, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty, and the release of all the prisoners.” According to Barghouti, the Palestinians were striving for an agreement in the framework of which “refugees would realize their right to return in accordance with Resolution 194.”37 Hussam Khader, a Fatah leader in Nablus, clarified, “Any [Palestinian] president who will sign in the name of the refugees on a waiver of the right of return…we will be obligated to kill him or rebel against him.”38
Hanan Ashrawi, another prominent representative of what is depicted as the “pragmatic” stream, presents positions similar to the Palestinian consensus and emphasizes that the right of return is a private right of every refugee. In other words, representatives of the Palestinian people have no authority to waive it. In an interview with the Hebrew paper Zman Yerushalayim on September 25, 2007, Ashrawi – currently the head of the nonprofit Miftah organization for promoting democracy and human rights in the Palestinian Authority, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, and a member of the Palestinian Parliament – says: “One must recognize rights according to international law and Resolution 194 of the United Nations. There is not a single Palestinian who will forgo the rights of the refugees. A leader who will tell you he will do this in order to propitiate you will lose credibility among his own people.” Referring to a way to solve the refugee problem, Ashrawi said: “The options will be diverse and will provide various solutions, according to law. The most important aspect is the right to choose. They will choose like any human being who wants the best for his children….The moment that you thaw out and recognize the iniquity, they will be free to make decisions. One should try this, but the moment that they can choose – and many choices exist according to law – then we will see what option they will select.”39
Dr. Samir Abdallah signed the Geneva Initiative in 2003 that aroused criticism in the Palestinian arena over passages that were implicitly interpreted as a compromise on the right of return. When he served as Minister of Labor and Planning in the Palestinian Authority, Abdallah addressed the issue in a newspaper interview on April 12, 2008. In response to a question: “Do you still stick to the right of return?” he said: “Of course, we will never forgo it. This is a collective and private right and the return of the refugees is the most important card from this standpoint in the negotiations, and its value pertaining to the Palestinian people is higher from a diplomatic and material standpoint than all the other topics.”40 Additional Palestinian personages (including Iyad Sarraj, Nabil Kasis and Fayha Abd-el Hadi) who signed the Geneva Initiative were parties to the dispatch of a public letter to Abbas in 2010 in which they expressed their vigorous opposition to renewing negotiations with Israel without a prior agreement on the source of authority for the discussions that were to have included, according to them, the guarantee of the right of return.41
This should be read by everybody interested in peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. It is, I would say, the major issue and one that cannot be left over as something to discuss after Israel gives up more concessions and land, but something that needs to be brought into the forefront of negotiations immediately, with Israel making it very clear that this is a red line that will halt every other peace track while it remains a Palestinian Arab demand.
Wikileaks: How to negotiate with Iranians (1979)
Here’s a notable cable, from 1979 – in the wake of the Islamic revolution in Iran – on how Iranians think, and what precautions diplomats need to take in negotiating with Iranians.
INTRODUCTION: RECENT NEGOTIATIONS IN WHICH THE EMBASSY HAS BEEN INVOLVED HERE, RANGING FROM COMPOUND SECURITY TO VISA OPERATIONS TO GTE TO THE SHERRY CASE, HIGHLIGHT SEVERAL SPECIAL FEATURES OF CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN THE PERSIAN ENVIRONMENT. IN SOME INSTANCES THE DIFFICULTIES WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED ARE A PARTIAL REFLECTION ON THE EFFECTS OF THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION, BUT WE BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING CULTURAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL QUALITIES THAT ACCOUNT FOR THE NATURE OF THESE DIFFICULTIES ARE AND WILL REMAIN RELATIVELY CONSTANT. THEREFORE, WE SUGGEST THAT THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS BE USED TO BRIEF BOTH USG PERSONNEL AND PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE REQUIRED TO DO BUSINESS WITH AND IN THIS COUNTRY. END INTRODUCTION.
¶3. PERHAPS THE SINGLE DOMINANT ASPECT OF THE PERSIAN PSYCHE IS AN OVERRIDING EGOISM. ITS ANTECEDENTS LIE IN THE LONG IRANIAN HISTORY OF INSTABILITY AND INSECURITY WHICH PUT A PREMIUM ON SELF-PRESERVATION. THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF IT IS AN ALMOST TOTAL PERSIAN PREOCCUPATION WITH SELF AND LEAVES LITTLE ROOM FOR UNDERSTANDING POINTS OF VIEW OTHER THAN ONE’S OWN. …
¶4. THE REVERSE OF THIS PARTICULAR PSYCHOLOGICAL COIN, AND HAVING THE SAME HISTORICAL ROOTS AS PERSIAN EGOISM, IS A PERVASIVE UNEASE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE WORLD IN WHICH ONE LIVES. THE PERSIAN EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT NOTHING IS PERMANENT AND IT IS COMMONLY PERCEIVED THAT HOSTILE FORCES ABOUND. IN SUCH AN ENVIRONMENT EACH INDIVIDUAL MUST BE CONSTANTLY ALERT FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST THE MALEVOLENT FORCES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE HIS UNDOING. HE IS OBVIOUSLY JUSTIFIED IN USING ALMOST ANY MEANS AVAILABLE TO EXPLOIT SUCH OPPORTUNITIES. THIS APPROACH UNDERLIES THE SOCALLED “BAZAAR MENTALITY” SO COMMON AMONG PERSIANS, A MIND-SET THAT OFTEN IGNORES LONGER TERM INTERESTS IN FAVOR OF IMMEDIATELY OBTAINABLE ADVANTAGES AND COUNTENANCES PRACTICES THAT ARE REGARDED AS UNETHICAL BY OTHER NORMS.
¶5. COUPLED WITH THESE PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS IS A GENERAL INCOMPREHENSION OF CASUALITY. ISLAM, WITH ITS EMPHASIS ON THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD, APPEARS TO ACCOUNT AT LEAST IN MAJOR PART FOR THIS PHENOMENON. SOMEWHAT SURPRISINGLY, EVEN THOSE IRANIANS EDUCATED IN THE WESTERN STYLE AND PERHAPS WITH LONG EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE IRAN ITSELF FREQUENTLY HAVE DIFFICULTY GRASPING THE INTER-RELATIONSHIP OF EVENTS. WITNESS A YAZDI RESISTING THE IDEA THAT IRANIAN BEHAVIOR HAS CONSEQUENCES ON THE PERCEPTION OF IRAN IN THE U.S. OR THAT THIS PERCEPTION IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO AMERICAN POLICIES REGARDING IRAN. THIS SAME QUALITY ALSO HELPS EXPLAIN PERSIAN AVERSION TO ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE’S OWN ACTIONS. THE DEUS EX MACHINA IS ALWAYS AT WORK.
¶6. THE PERSIAN PROCLIVITY FOR ASSUMING THAT TO SAY SOMETHING IS TO DO IT FURTHER COMPLICATES MATTERS. …
¶6. FINALLY, THERE ARE THE PERSIAN CONCEPTS OF INFLUENCE AND OBLIGATION. EVERYONE PAYS OBEISANCE TO THE FORMER AND THE LATTER IS USUALLY HONORED IN THE BREACH. PERSIANS ARE CONSUMED WITH DEVELOPING PARTI BAZI-THE INFLUENCE THAT WILL HELP GET THINGS DONE-WHILE FAVORS ARE ONLY GRUDGINGLY BESTOWED AND THEN JUST TO THE EXTENT THAT A TANGIBLE QUID PRO QUO IS IMMEDIATELY PRECEPTIBLE. FORGET ABOUT ASSISTANCE PROFERRED LAST YEAR OR EVEN LAST WEEK; WHAT CAN BE OFFERED TODAY?
¶7. THERE ARE SEVERAL LESSONS FOR THOSE WHO WOULD NEGOTIATE WITH PERSIANS IN ALL THIS:
– -FIRST, ONE SHOULD NEVER ASSUME THAT HIS SIDE OF THE ISSUE WILL BE RECOGNIZED, LET ALONE THAT IT WILL BE CONCEDED TO HAVE MERITS. PERSIAN PREOCCUPATION WITH SELF PRECLUDES THIS. A NEGOTIATOR MUST FORCE RECOGNITION OF HIS POSITION UPON HIS PERSIAN OPPOSITE NUMBER.
– -SECOND, ONE SHOULD NOT EXPECT AN IRANIAN READILY TO PERCEIVE THE ADVANTAGES OF A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP BASED ON TRUST. HE WILL ASSUME THAT HIS OPPOSITE NUMBER IS ESSENTIALLY AN ADVERSARY. IN DEALING WITH HIM HE WILL ATTEMPT TO MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS TO HIMSELF THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY OBTAINABLE. HE WILL BE PREPARED TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, INCLUDING RUNNING THE RISK OF SO ALIENATING WHOEVER HE IS DEALING WITH THAT FUTURE BUSINESS WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE, AT LEAST TO THE LATTER.
– -THIRD, INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIPS OF ALL ASPECTS OF AN ISSUE MUST BE PAINSTAKINGLY, FORECEFULLY AND REPEATEDLY DEVELOPED. LINKAGES WILL BE NEITHER READILY COMPREHENDED NOR ACCEPTED BY PERSIAN NEGOTIATORS.
– -FOURTH, ONE SHOULD INSIST ON PERFORMANCE AS THE SINE QUA NON AT ESH STAGE OF NEGOTIATIONS. STATEMENTS OF INTENTION COUNT FOR ALMOST NOTHING.
– -FIFTH, CULTIVATION OF GOODWILL FOR GOODWILL’S SAKE IS A WASTE OF EFFORT. THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE AT ALL TIMES SHOULD BE IMPRESSING UPON THE PERSIAN ACROSS THE TABLE THE MUTUALITY OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKINGS, HE MUST BE MADE TO KNOW THAT A QUID PRO QUO IS INVOLVED ON BOTH SIDES.
– -FINALLY, ONE SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR THE THREAT OF BREAKDOWN IN NEGOTIATIONS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT AND NOT BE COWED BY THE POSSIBLITY. GIVEN THE PERSIAN NEGOTIATOR’S CULTURAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS, HE IS GOING TO RESIST THE VERY CONCEPT OF A RATIONAL (FROM THE WESTERN POINT OF VIEW) NEGOTIATING PROCESS.
I would guess that things are a little different now, only because the Iranian leadership is committed to a policy of lying about and hiding its nuclear program as a state-level function, not merely on the personal plane that this cable is speaking about. But it is still illuminating, and probably not far off from the truth.
Incentivizing Israel to Negotiate in Bad Faith
I have a new post up at Comments from Left Field on Israel’s agreement to freeze new settlement construction in the West Bank in exchange (among other things) for the United States never asking Israel to do it again.
Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan calls on U.S. to negotiate with jihad terrorists of Hamas
Mask starting to slipIslamic supremacist pseudo-moderate Reza Aslan is a clown, and the only proper response to clowns is laughter, but if any of the multitudes of useful idiots and dupes in Washington heed his advice, it could be lethal: he is also a Board member of a group that is widely regarded as an apologetic vehicle for the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is now calling upon the U.S. to negotiate with the jihad terrorists of Hamas.
In “Obama’s Middle East policy Is a Failure,” which is part of a dialogue entitled “The Middle East Peace Process: Opposing Views” at the Huffington Post, October 29, Aslan says this:
All is not necessarily lost. The president still has an opportunity, particularly after the midterm elections, to reinvigorate the Middle East peace process. It means breaking from the Bush-era policy of pitting Hamas and Fatah against each other and instead using intermediaries to bring Hamas into the negotiations.
It is important to recall why Hamas is on the terror list in the first place: consider the “Glory Record” that used to be on its website. You can still see it here, via the Wayback Machine. Just in case that is not accessible, here are some excerpts in which Hamas considered attacks on Israeli civilians something that gave it “glory”:
Hamas operations -The Glory Record
[…] 3. Boureen Operation: The militant Hamdan Hussein Al:najar, a member of Hamas, killed the Israeli settler Ya’coub Berey using a big rock as his weapon. The militant was shot down as a martyr after he had ambushed an Israeli patrol using the dead settler’s weapon.
[…] 6. Bus No. 405 Operation: Militant Ahmed Hussein Shukry, a member of Hamas, was able to lead an Israeli soldier to a secluded place in Tel Aviv where the militant hit the soldier with a chisel and killed him on 8 September 1989. The following day, the militant got on bus No. 405 and stabbed the driver to take over the bus; however, the passengers were able to stop the militant.
[…] 12. Keryat Youval Operation: The militant Mohammed Mustafa Abu Jalala stabbed four Israelis and injured another at a bus station in Keryat Youval in Jerusalem before he was arrested by the Israeli forces.
13. Askalan Road Operation: While driving a taxi, the militant Jameel Ismail Al:baz, a member of Hamas, ran over a group of Israelis waiting on this road on 19 July 1991. He was able to kill corporal Nadaf Der’ey and injure another soldier. Then the militant was able to escape but he was later arrested by the Israeli forces.
[…] 15. Shailou Operation: A military group belonging to Al Qassam Brigades attacked an Israeli bus carrying some settlers on their way to Tel Aviv to participate in demonstrations organized by the extremist party Likud against the peace process. The bus was completely destroyed; two Israelis were killed and five more were injured.
[…] 17. Eid Al-maskhara Operation: The militant Ra’ed Al:reefy attacked an Israeli crowd in Jaffa on 17 March 1992. He was able to kill 2 and injure 21 Israelis who gathered to celebrate Eid Al:maskhara, also known as Al:boureem.
18. Beit Lahya Operation: On the third anniversary of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s arrest, a group belonging to Al Qassam Brigades attacked an Israeli settler at Beit Lahya and shot him down then withdrew safely.
[…] 21. Carlo Factory Operation: Four militants belonging to Al Qassam Brigades broke into a citrus packing factory (Carlo) near Nahal Oaz at 2:30 p.m. on 25 June 1992. Three militants stabbed two Israelis while the other was guarding. The Hamas members wrote some slogans and considered this operation as a gift for Yitzhak Rabin on the occasion of winning the Israeli elections.
[…] 26. Al Haram Al-Ibrahimy Operation: Two militants belonging to Al Qassam Brigades attacked an Israeli group near Al Haram (the Shrine) in Hebron. One of the militants attacked the group while the other was on guard. The Israeli forces admitted that only one Israeli was killed and another was injured although the Israeli authorities were shocked by this audacious and well-planned operation. Thereafter they arrested many members of Hamas.
[…] 49. Martyr Hatem Al:muzein Operation: Despite the intensive existence of the Israeli forces, the Curfew and the military siege, a member of Al Qassam Brigades stabbed a 38-year-old Israeli settler, Sha’ya Doytch, from Kfar Yam, a settlement of Ghosh Qateif at 7:00 a.m., while he was working at his greenhouse west of Jan Oar. He was taken to Sarouka Hospital in Beir Sheiba’a, but he died one hour later.
[…] 56. The Revenge Operation: As soon as the Israeli forces announced the execution of the six heroes, Al Qassam Brigade militants put explosives in a 15-storey shopping centre in Tel Aviv on 16 May 1993. The building was completely destroyed and several Israelis were killed and others injured. The Israeli forces admitted that one Israeli had been killed and 40 were injured as a result of a gas bottle explosion in order to cover up the operation.
[…] 61. The Two Martyrs, Hatem Al-muhtaseb and Ya’coub Mutaw’e Operation: It was a violent clap for Rabin when a commando group belonging to Al Qassam Brigades hijacked a bus on HI-25 west of Jerusalem at 7:30 a.m. on 1 July 1993 during the rush hour. The group was able to penetrate the security siege and reached the target bus from 100 metres from the Israeli police headquarters. However, the passengers were able to leave the bus because something wrong happened and so the group engaged in battle with the Israeli forces. Meanwhile, the militants Maher Abu Srour and Mohammed Al-hindy hijacked another car driven by an Israeli lady after the militant Othman Saleh had been injured. They bombed the car and all three were killed in addition to another Israeli soldier and lady that were on the bus. The militant Othman Saleh was taken captive although he was unconscious and kept saying “Allahu Akbar” while the Israeli forces were investigating him. A manifest was found on him with the following demands:
A. The bus must be driven to the Lebanese borders.
B. Al:sheikh Ahmed Yassin must be safely released immediately.
C. Fifty captives belonging to Hamas, 50 belonging to the other Palestinian formations such as Fateh, Al:jehad Al:Islamy and the Democratic Front, etc., must be released.
D. Al-sheikh Abdelkareem Obeid must also be released.[…] 67. Downtown Hebron Operation: During these serious conditions in which the disgraceful peace treaty was signed, the militants belonging to the Martyr Abdallah Azzam group ambushed an Israeli bus at the Hebron-Keryat Arba’a junction on Sunday, 12 September 1993. The militants shot the soldiers down and took their papers and weapons, including an M-16 rifle and a Klashenkoff after which they withdrew safely.
[…] 69. Askalan Operation: Al Qassam militants were quite active in the 1948-occupied territories when the militant Ala’a Al-kahlout stabbed an Israeli bus driver while travelling from Askalan to Asdoud on Sunday, 12 September 1993. The militant detonated all the explosives he had on the bus causing injuries to several Israelis. One of the passengers was able to shoot the militant down who was later martyred. The Israeli forces admitted that the bus driver was killed and three Israeli passengers were injured.
[…] 77. Beit Kahel Operation: In revenge for the bloodshed caused by the Israeli aggression and attacks on the Palestinian towns, villages and camps, Al Qassam Brigade militants ambushed Rabbi Haim Drucman’s car, a prominent chief of the racial Zionist movement, Gosh Amunim and an ex-member of Parliament. They fired at his car near the Beit Kahel junction at 8:30 a.m. on Sunday, 7 November 1993. The driver was killed but the Rabbi, who is responsible for the settlement process, was seriously injured.
78. Hebron Operation: As part of the war waged by Al Qassam Brigades against the Israeli settlers, a group belonging to the battalion attacked a vehicle belonging to an Israeli settler near Hebron on Monday, 6 December 1993. Two settlers were killed and three were injured.
79. Hamas Operation: Two militants belonging to Al Qassam Brigades used a car to drive over an Israeli vehicle near Beitonia, southwest of Ramallah, at the industrial zone on Wednesday, 22 December 1993. They killed two and injured three other Israelis from Doulb, who were also in the car.
[…] 82. Al-khdeireh Operation: During the Israeli memorial day celebrations of the Israelis killed in the Arab-Israeli wars and one week after the revenge operation, the militant Ammar Amarneh, a member of Al Qassam Brigades, blew up an Israeli bus belonging to Eaged working on line 8 at Al:khdeireh, northwest of Tulkarm, on 31 April 1994. Five Israelis were killed and more than 32 were seriously injured.
[…] 85. Dezenkov Street Operation: In an immediate reaction to the previous operation, the militant Saleh Abdelraheem Sawy bombed an Israeli bus at Dezenkof Street in downtown Tel Aviv on 19 October 1994. The explosion was rather violent, leaving 22 Israelis dead, 47 injured and seriously damaging many shops. Israelis were confused and shocked by this operation, causing Yitzhak Rabin to shorten his visit to London.
Reza Aslan merits the contempt of all free people.
President Obama Wants to Negotiate with a 9-11 Truther? US Delegates Walk out of Ahmadinejad’s Stating Americans were Behind the 9/11 Terror Attacks
So President Barack Hussein Obama wants to negotiate with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who states that America was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks from radical Islam, really?
How could any fool in the MSM try and analyze the comments of a crazy man?
Yesterday at the UN, the US delegation walked out on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech as he went on with his crazy rant that the United States government was behind the 9-11 radical Islamic terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3000 innocent people. The same man who President Obama wants to have negotiations with over nuclear armaments. The same man who has said he wants to see Israel wiped off the map. Ahmadinejad also suggested that there needs to be an independent commission to examine the attacks. Why do we give these nuts any credibility?
The U.S. delegation to the U.N. walked out of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech before the general assembly Thursday after the controversial leader said some believe Americans were behind the 9/11 terror attacks.
The Associated Press reported that Ahmadinejad claimed that some speculate that Americans organized the attack to ensure Israel’s survival.
The U.S. delegation issued a statement in response, the AP reported.
“Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people, Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable,” they said.
I am more stunned by the comments from the US delegation than I am the crazed anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I expect nothing less from Ahmadinejad who is nothing but a hate filled, crazed individual. However, for the US delegation to ever contemplate that Ahmadinejad would “represent the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people,” what planet do you live on?
The response from the White House was spokesman Robert Gibbs making the comment how daer he make such accusations so close to the Ground Zero. Newsflash, the Ground Zero mosque is closer to Ground Zero than the UN.
‘Young Gun’ Paul Ryan Breaks With Boehner: ‘We Do Not Want To Negotiate Down’ On Bush Tax Cuts
Yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (D-OH) “opened the door to a compromise” on the Bush-era tax cuts on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, saying “if the only option I have is to vote for some” tax reductions for families earning less than $ 250,000, “I’ll vote for them.” But this afternoon, during an appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show to promote his new book ‘Young Guns’, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) backed away from Boehner’s concession, insisting that Republicans should not water down their commitments to extending tax cuts for the richest Americans:
HANNITY: [Boehner] said he would vote for extending tax cuts of middle class earners even though it was bad policy to exclude the highest earning Americans, which they pay the greater percentage of income taxes. So I ask you, in that sense, is it wrong to say that you’d even consider you know, not a full complete extension of the Bush tax cuts?
RYAN: No, we are for a full, complete extension of the Bush tax cuts. We do not want to negotiate down. We want to extend all of these things…We should not begin negotiating that down, we should be insisting on preventing this huge tax increase on the most successful small businesses, which is where most of our jobs come from.
Listen:
In fact, a growing number of Republicans are now distancing themselves from Boehner’s remarks. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), announced today that “he will introduce legislation that would ensure that no one pays higher income taxes next year.” Similarly, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said through a spokesperson that “there should be no tax increase on any job creator next year.”
Earlier in the program, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) — who issued a harsh statement earlier in the day — also seemed to disagree with Boehner’s approach. “John Boehner is a small business person,” he said. “He knows what tax hikes mean to a small business, especially in a recession and I know that all of us are going to work and do everything we can to make sure that we do not allow tax hikes to occur this year.”
‘Young Gun’ Paul Ryan Breaks With Boehner: ‘We Do Not Want To Negotiate Down’ On Bush Tax Cuts
Yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (D-OH) “opened the door to a compromise” on the Bush-era tax cuts on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, saying “if the only option I have is to vote for some” tax reductions for families earning less than $ 250,000, “I’ll vote for them.” But this afternoon, during an appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show to promote his new book ‘Young Guns’, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) backed away from Boehner’s concession, insisting that Republicans should not water down their commitments to extending tax cuts for the richest Americans:
HANNITY: [Boehner] said he would vote for extending tax cuts of middle class earners even though it was bad policy to exclude the highest earning Americans, which they pay the greater percentage of income taxes. So I ask you, in that sense, is it wrong to say that you’d even consider you know, not a full complete extension of the Bush tax cuts?
RYAN: No, we are for a full, complete extension of the Bush tax cuts. We do not want to negotiate down. We want to extend all of these things…We should not begin negotiating that down, we should be insisting on preventing this huge tax increase on the most successful small businesses, which is where most of our jobs come from.
Listen:
In fact, a growing number of Republicans are now distancing themselves from Boehner’s remarks. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), announced today that “he will introduce legislation that would ensure that no one pays higher income taxes next year.” Similarly, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said through a spokesperson that “there should be no tax increase on any job creator next year.”
Earlier in the program, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) — who issued a harsh statement earlier in the day — also seemed to disagree with Boehner’s approach. “John Boehner is a small business person,” he said. “He knows what tax hikes mean to a small business, especially in a recession and I know that all of us are going to work and do everything we can to make sure that we do not allow tax hikes to occur this year.”
Cross-posted on the Wonk Room.
