Recently, five congressmen visited the area (in the 1980s we even had Senators - Helms, Hecht and Furenberger) out here in Yesha and we have been in House corridors.
Several Republican candidates have spoken out forcefully (1 & 2) on the issue of whether the Jewish communities are legal and whether Judea and Samaria should be retained by Israel.
Now this story:
...Mr. Gingrich suggested that he might break with it [the so-called "two-state" solution], calling Palestinians an “invented” people and the current stalled peace process “delusional.”...He also said the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, which has pledged to respect Israel’s right to exist, really harbors “an enormous desire to destroy Israel.”
In his comments, Mr. Gingrich has gone beyond the other Republican presidential candidates, who have condemned President Obama for proposing that Israel’s 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps, should be the basis for negotiating peace with the Palestinians.
...Discussing the origin of the state of Israel in the 1940s, Mr. Gingrich said: “Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”...
...Mr. Gingrich, who is leading in recent polls, has repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for bending too far in favor of the Palestinians. He was applauded at a candidates’ forum on Wednesday by a coalition of Jewish Republicans for characterizing the administration’s view as “it’s always Israel’s fault — no matter how bad the other side is.”
And then you have Martin S. Indyk reacting in hysterical fashion:
...if Mr. Gingrich believed that Palestinians did not have a right to an independent state, “as implied in his language, then he’s not pro-Israel at all.”
as well as another "Establishment" figure:
David A. Harris, chief executive of the National Jewish Democratic Council, an American Jewish group, said Mr. Gingrich’s views reversed decades of American policy by both Democratic and Republican administrations. “This is as clear a demonstration as one needs that he’s not ready for prime time,” Mr. Harris said.
But Gingrinch seems to be quite cognizant of the political realities:
...“I mean, we have an armed truce with a Palestinian Authority that’s relatively weak,” he said. “And on its flank is a Hamas authority, which may become relatively weak because it can’t deliver anything. But both of which represent an enormous desire to destroy Israel.”
He described Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, as denying Israel’s right to exist.
“You have Abbas, who says in the United Nations, ‘We do not necessarily concede Israel’s right to exist,’ ” Mr. Gingrich said. “So you have to start with this question: ‘Who are you making peace with?’ ”
Sheldon Adelson seems to be assisting.
Seems, a major change is in the works. It will seep down and finally, a true discourse on the possibilities for peace and the requirments of security will be fixed.
_____________
The clip:
_____________
The clarification:
Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said afterward that the candidate was merely referring to the "decades-long history that has surrounded this issue," and has long supported the concept of Palestinian statehood. "Gingrich supports a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which will necessarily include agreement between Israel and the Palestinians over the borders of a Palestinian state," Hammond said in a statement. "However, to understand what is being proposed and negotiated you have to understand decades of complex history -- which is exactly what Gingrich was referencing during the recent interview with Jewish TV."
But
on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zuheir Muhsein. Here's what he said:
Quote:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. Unquote.
And this from Daniel Pipes:
Everyone from the PLO to a Mitt Romney spokesman jumped on Gingrich for this assertion, but he happens to be absolutely correct: no Arabic-speaking Muslims identified themselves as "Palestinian" until 1920, when, in rapid order this appellation and identity was adopted by the Muslim Arabs living in the British mandate of Palestine.
So why get angry at Gingrich?
Go Ging!
Gingrich sticks by Palestinian comment, draws rebukes from GOP candidates
NEW YORK (JTA) -- Republican presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich stood by his assertion that the Palestinians are an "invented people," drawing criticism from other GOP candidates.
"Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes," Gingrich said during a GOP debate Saturday night in Iowa. "We are in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States -- the current administration -- tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process."
"Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth,” he continued. "These people are terrorists, they teach terrorism in their schools."...
^
2 comments:
Herodotos wrote of "Palestinian Syrians." In other words, he was writing about a species of Syrian [which in turn refers to Tyre, in Hebrew TSor. Syria is the hinterland of TSor]. Herodotos used the word "palestinian" not as a noun but as an adjective. Historians have agreed that he was referring to Jews. These "palestinian syrians" had a main city called Cadytis which --taking away the Greek suffix "-is"-- leaves us with Kadut, very close to Qadosh, also considering that the SH was replaced by T [or vice versa] in some Semitic languages. Consider Hebrew "Shor" [= ox] and Aramaic "Tor" for the same [not so far from the Spanish toro or the French Taureau, by the way].
Various traits of these "palestinian syrians" identify them as Jews. The city of Qadosh is believed to have been Jerusalem [`ir haQodesh]. The city name Azotos as used by Herodotos refers to Gaza [on various linguistic and archeological grounds], although later in the Hellenistic and Roman periods the name referred to Ashdod. I published a letter in HaUmmah making these points. Can supply the date to whoever is interested.
Herodotos does refer to Arabs in his book, so if his "palestinian syrians" were Arabs he could have called them that.
Post a Comment