Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts

Monday, December 12, 2011

Salam Fayyad: Gingrich's 'Nazi ideology'

From Ma'an News Agency:

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad also urged Gingrich to open a history book.   "Even the most extremist settlers of Israel wouldn’t talk in such a ridiculous way," Fayyad told reporters on Saturday.  Such remarks would be better suited for a politician adhering to "a Nazi ideology, a source of suffering for humanity, and the Jews topped the list of victims” of that ideology, he added.

That last part was not reported by any major news outlet.

Why?

^

Have A Laugh At J Street's Expense

Here's the J Street Statement on Newt Gingrich which begins

J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami released the following statement in response to Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s recent remarks about the Palestinians.

“Newt Gingrich’s comments about the Palestinian people and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are ill-informed, irresponsible and frightening.

The former Speaker’s assertion that the Palestinians are an ‘invented’ people shows an appalling lack of understanding of the history of the Middle East in the last century following the break-up of the Ottoman Empire.

So, the glorious history and heritage of the ancient "Palestinian people", whose supposed ancestors predated Jews in the country, who descended from Jebusites, etc., etc., etc., - but who actually refered to themselves as "Southern Syrians" in the early 1920s, demanding that the League of Nations Mandate be dissolved and the country reunited with Syria * - needs to be defended by Jeremy Ben-Ami who can go back no further than "the last century"?

Oh, woe!

And who is ill-informed?

See below.

________

*

Arab opposition to the Mandate idea of a Jewish National Home began in early 1919:


The first Palestinian Arab congress (al-Muʾtamar al-Arabi al-Filastini) met in Jerusalem from 27 January to 9 February 1919. Organized by local Muslim and Christian associations, its thirty participants framed a national charter that demanded independence for Palestine, denounced the Balfour Declaration (and its promise of a Jewish national home), and rejected British rule over Palestine. A majority sought the incorporation of Palestine into an independent Syrian state, and the delegates strongly denounced French claims to a mandate over Syria. The congress expressed its request for independence in the language of U.S. president Woodrow Wilson's principles supporting the right of self-determination of subject peoples.

This, of course, highlights the major problem with the so called "Palestinian nationalism" in that in the early 1920s, it sought not an "independent Palestine" but a "Greater Syria".

The text of two of the relevant decisions:

"1. We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds.

2. The Declaration made by M. Pichon, Minister for Foreig Affairs for France, that France had rights in our country based on the desires and aspirations of the inhabitants has no foundation and we reject all the declarations made in his speech of 29th December 1918, as our wishes and aspirations are only in Arab unity and complete independence.

3. In view of the above we desire that one district Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and to be free from all foreign influence and protection."


^

In Praise of Newt Gingrich - Discourse Trendsetter

Melanie Phillips on the new political discourse in American politics:

Hey, stop this dangerous candidate! He's told the truth!

US presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich (whose Lazarus-like trajectory to the Republican nomination I flagged up here a month ago) has recently demonstrated yet again Melanie’s First Rule of Modern Political Discourse – the more obvious the truth that you utter, the more explosive and abusive the reaction.

For Gingrich said the Palestinian Arabs were ‘an invented people’ – and the world promptly started hurling execrations at him...As Elder of Ziyon pointed out, the Arabs who lived in Palestine were a disconnected bunch of tribes who had nothing in common with each other except that they were Arabs. They never were, are not and never will be a Palestinian people (the claim that they are now just because they say they are is risible and would be dismissed out of hand if applied to any other self-defined grouping)...

...‘Palestinianism’ was invented solely to destroy Israel. The one and only characteristic of this spurious ‘national’ identity is the aim of destroying another - authentic - national identity...The agenda of ‘Palestinian rights’ is, however, now so deeply rooted in western discourse and diplomacy – and even in Israeli leftist discourse – that Gingrich has found himself under attack for talking rubbish. But it is his attackers whose arguments are jaw-droppingly absurd...

...Gingrich’s remark goes to the very heart of the issue; and it is the fact that so many in the intellectual, political and diplomatic world – including in Israel itself – find what he said so outlandish that goes a long way to explain why there is still no peace in the Middle East.

Gosh – a presidential candidate who actually understands what’s going on in the Middle East and speaks the truth about it! No wonder they’re so desperate now to stop him.

Read it all, though.

^

Saturday, December 10, 2011

More Progress on American Political Front

As my readers know, I and my friends have been engaged these past decades in attempting to realign strategic thinking on the part of the US administrations, Congress and State Department officials. As American citizens, we view this as part of the democratic process which, of course, is employed by many other immigrant groups and, to be clear, is more moral than what many of our local NGOs attempt to do, with foreign money, here in Israel.

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."...


^