« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Newt Gingrich Tells the Truth About the Palestinian Non-Entity

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  December 10th, 2011 at 08:44 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“The Palestinians are the global warming climate change of geopolitical conflict. They use deceptive parlance to advance their agenda.”

Newt Gingrich hit it out of the park with his succinct assessment of the “Palestinian” cause.

One of the most incorrigible fallacies pertaining to the Middle East is the notion that the Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own.  This fallacy stems from the misconception that there is a nation of ‘Palestinians’, and to the extent that such a nation exists, this name is an accurate representation of the Arabs who live in modern Israel.  This artful manipulation of the geopolitical lexicon was meant to bestow upon a group of random Arabs a false sense of geographical ties to the Holy Land.

In 1977, during an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, PLO Executive Committee member Zuheir Mohsen described the stratagem as this:

“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.”

This delusion is no trivial matter.  For years, the left wing foreign policy establishment has rapturously promoted the ‘Palestinians’ as the cause célèbre of our national security interests.  Instead of focusing on the real threats to our national security (such as those who, incidentally, fund the so-called Palestinians), the foreign policy establishment has singularly focused on creating a state for the most virulently anti-American people on the face of the planet.  Their maniacal fixation on the Palestinians has left them devoid of solutions regarding the broader turmoil in the Middle East.

The first step in undoing this foreign policy mess is for the next president to deracinate the entire myth of a ‘Palestinian people’.  Kudos to Newt Gingrich for finally telling the truth about the geopolitical cause célèbre of all the world’s imbeciles.

In a TV interview with the Jewish Channel, Gingrich made the following basic observation:

“Remember, there was no Palestine as a state — (it was) part of the Ottoman Empire. I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s.”

This is the type of fighting spirit that everyone on the right – both admirers and detractors  – appreciates about Newt.

All students of history, barring those who attended left-wing universities, know that the origin of the term Palestine comes from the Roman Empire.  When they captured Judea during the first century, the Romans renamed the Jewish kingdom ‘Palestine’ after the ancient Philistines referenced in the Bible.  After the British kicked out the Ottoman Turks from Transjordan (comprised of modern-day Israel and Jordan), they renamed it the British Mandate of Palestine, once again hearkening back to its ancient etymology.  Although the original Balfour Declaration called for a Jewish homeland in the entirety of this territory, 78% of it was ultimately siphoned off for the modern state of Jordan in 1946.  Unsatisfied with 78% of the territory, Jordan invaded the new Jewish state of Israel in 1948 and illegally occupied half of the remaining 22% of the territory for 18 years.

In 1967, the Jordanians (not the so-called Palestinians), along with its Arab neighbors, invaded Israel once again in the hopes that they would wipe out the remaining Jewish presence.  Israel won that war and kicked out the Jordanians from the land they illegally occupied, known as the West Bank.  This land has nothing to do with a Palestinian people; it was illegally part of Jordan for 18 years.  80% of the so-called Palestinians are Jordanian Arabs.  Hence, there already is a ‘Palestinian state’ in Jordan.

Not surprisingly, gas bag Michigan Senator Carl Levin decried Gingrich’s fact check as “cynical”, “divisive, and destructive,” even as he declined to challenge the veracity of the GOP hopeful’s statement:

“the vast majority of American Jews — including this one — and the Israeli government … are committed to a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side as neighbors and in peace.

“Gingrich’s cynical efforts to attract attention to himself with divisive and destructive statements will not help his presidential ambitions,” Levin said, “since they are aimed at putting the peace between Israel and the Palestinians that Americans yearn for even further out of reach than it is today.”

Memo to dinosaur Senator Levin:  No, this is not a cynical ploy to garner Jewish support because Gingrich (and every other GOP candidate for that matter) understands that he will not obtain a significant minority of the Jewish vote, let alone a majority.  Believe it or not, Mr. Levin, there are those who actually understand history, and intuitively reject the notion that we should invest our time and treasure into a lie.  If there is anything cynical, divisive, and destructive, it is your pathetic attempt to use your religious identity to shield Obama from the vices of being the most pro-’Palestinian’ president in American history.

The Palestinians are the global warming climate change of geopolitical conflict.  They use deceptive parlance to advance their agenda.  Thankfully, Newt is speaking the truth, instead of worshiping at the altar of the pan-Islamists in the UN.  Mitt Romney is accusing him of undercutting the Israelis, but Newt was wise to express the truth from the American perspective.  There is no national interest for America in the creation of a state for a non-entity, irrespective of what the Israelis chose for their own interests.

It’s these moments of straight talk from Gingrich that resonate with conservatives.  Now, if only he would govern with the same conviction and audacity that is reflected in his rhetoric…..

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • center77

    I?m going to admit this, I have no Idea if there was ever a Palestine state, but in my Bible there is a map that lists the area as Palestine. That being said, this nation has to be in favor of a two state solution. I think the worst thing is that war is going to happen as long as there is no Palestine state. I am convinced we have to side with Israel, and they indeed feel that a two state solution is needed as long as the Palestinians will play nice, but that is a far cry from what Newt is saying. This was probably not the best thing to say whether it true or not. I am not sure if many will agree, but that is simply the case.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      You do realize that has nothing to do with what Daniel is talking about, right?

      Seriously.

    • Tbone

      “as long as the Palestinians will play nice”

      If you kill them all, they will be nice. Is that what you want?

    • aesthete

      “Palestine” was the name accorded to the region in the Roman Empire that roughly corresponded with Judah’s political borders after the Kingdom of Judah was dissolved as a political entity by the Romans shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion. The naming convention carried over under the Byzantines, and was used by some of the other empires which ruled the Levant in later years, including the Brits.

    • barleycorn

      I generally try to refrain from harsh language on Redstate but your post has pushed me over the line. You are either a troll or an idiot or about 12 years old, or perhaps all three.

      In what alternate universe of logic does a map in your Bible with “Palestine” stamped on it, disprove ANYTHING that Mr. Horowitz wrote?

      You do understand that the maps in modern Bibles are produced currently as needed and not left over from the original Gutenberg print run?

      You do understand that the Roman Empire PREDATED the production of ANY Bible so even if you have a really really really old copy (like from your grandma) , then it would still be expected to reflect the influence of actions taken by the Roman Empire?

      Your comment is so thoroughly stupid on multiple levels that it very nearly defies categorization.

      You claim this nation “has to be in favor of a two state solution” . Bullhockey. As Mr. Horowitz eloquently explains, the “Palistinian people” don’t exist and the Palestinian State is a concoction of knaves and fools.

      Good grief, how can such stupidity spring from a common gene pool.

      • z06gal

        LOL!!!!!!!!!!

    • bonnman

      isn’t very accurate and leaves out some significant details. For example not only did UN Resolution 181 create the independent Jewish State of Israel, it also called for the creation of an independent Arab State and an international zone around Jerusalem, neither of which has happened yet.

      The area of Palestine was under British rule with about 2 million Arabs and Jews living together in the region peacefully, although there were maybe twice as many Arabs than Jews. After UN Resolution 181 passed their was fighting between the Jews and the Arab Palestinians because of land boundaries 1947-1948. However in 1948 Neighboring Arab countries, like Jordan and Egypt, then invaded Palestine resulting in a mass exodus of about 700,000 Arab Palestinians, thus the Palestinian refugees.

      There are most certainly Palestinians.

      • aesthete

        It rhymes with “Gay labs”. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that UN “mandate” coming true, given its track record and the participants in the region.

        As far as the peaceful coexistence of the Arabs and the Jews goes, I’d direct your attention to the Irgun and the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem during that time, as well as the illegal and frantic Jewish immigration to Israel from Cyprus, the Israeli and Arab arms buildup (illegal, goes without saying) in the run-up to 1948, the half-dozen kibbutzim ravaged by Muslims, the Deir Yassim massacre, the bombing of the King David Hotel, and massive Arab migration to Palestine. All this held together by Brits who wanted the hell out. The Levant under the British Mandate was about as peaceful as a kitten in heat, all told: a tinderbox ready to explode with sectarian, ethnic and political strife to fill a region twenty times its size.

        • bonnman

          The Irgun were considered terrorists by the British, they kidnapped British soldiers threatening to kill them in exchange for prisoners and the bombing of the King David Hotel was retaliation by the the Irgun against the British authorities not the Arabs. Jerusalem is a magnet for extremists and zealots and most of the violence was concentrated there between Jewish extremists like the Irgun, Arab extremists and the British authorities. Outside of Jerusalem the population was far more tolerant but perhaps a qualifier is needed, “relatively peaceful”

      • msbs05

        is a 2 way street. Jews were expelled from Arab countries like Egypt, in vast numbers, along with many Orthodox Christians. The “Palestinian” refugees CHOSE not to move into Jordon’s borders and to instead fight to remove Israel from existence. The Jewish refugees chose to gather in Israel and make peace in the region. That they are refugees does not make these Arabs legit with a historical right to the land. The Arabs have the whole of the middle east, have sections of Israel, yet they are still launching bombs and killing Jews. There will never be peace as long as Israel exists. No 2 state solution will ever bring peace, no matter how much the US and Israel want it to. Newtwas not only historically correct, he was honest about the history. My only complaint is he did not go far enough with the honesty and pretended there can be negoiated peace. Newt is for a 2 state solution, but I am not.

    • mikeymike143

      Ron Paul supporters are angry at his exclusion from the Republican Jewish Coalition presidential forum, despite Dr. Paul himself not publicly even caring. Supporters of the Klan do not get angry when they are excluded from NAACP banquets. Go on Ron Paul message boards, read the anti-Semitism, and then understand why nobody wants these miscreants anywhere near respectable events.

      The Republican Jewish Coalition recently held their 2012 Presidential Candidates Forum in Washington, DC. Ron Paul did not attend, which of course resulted in his supporters going ballistic. Because Ron Paul supporters have a habit of shouting down speakers and disrupting events, anything that minimizes their attendance improves Republican events.

      These events are for people to listen to the candidates and make an informed choice. Supporters of Dr. Paul already have their mind made up. There is no reason for them to attend a single event. They know who they are voting for.

      Yet the problem with Ron Paul supporters goes deeper than just bad behavior. There is a cancer in the Ron Paul movement. It is called anti-Semitism, and it is pervasive among his followers.

      Dr. Paul himself may not be one, but his outreach to the Jewish community has been non-existent. His supporters are angry that he was excluded from a Jewish event, but he never asked to be included. He has not said a single word about his exclusion. His supporters care. He doesn’t. In all of his years in office, he has never truly reached out to the Jewish community. Therefore, when a Jewish forum takes place, it is reasonable to understand why neither side would want to interact.

      Dr. Paul has never at any time condemned anti-Semitism, even in the most perfunctory of ways. He has never weeded out the anti-Semitism among his supporters. Those supporters will make the same argument they always make, that a few rotten apples should not spoil the whole bunch. This argument would be valid if the anti-Semitism was not so widespread. The bad apples are not the exception. They are much of the bucket.

      It took only several minutes of searching on Ron Paul forums to find pure Jew-hatred, with desperate attempts to insist that anti-Semitism was not so because they said so.

      The first comment was the stereotypical linking of Jews and money, which is every bit as awful as making remarks about black people involving chicken and watermelons. After the “Jews and money” link, the commenters got much worse.

      Some tried to claim that they liked Jews but hated Zionists, as if that is not the most pathetic and tired excuse of anti-Semites.

      One commenter compared Ron Paul to Jesus. Another accused Jews of using the Holocaust for political gain.

      (I am sure my Holocaust survivor dad and grandparents, while they were fleeing for their lives, had other considerations besides how being nearly shot to death could benefit them politically several decades later.)

      These comments were not “cherry-picked” to skew the data. They are the data.

      These are Ron Paul supporters. They judge everyone else. Now it is time for them to be judged.

      “Yes, but it will generate the most donations.

      Submitted by YumYum on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:25.
      $$$$$$$$$!!!!”

      “Real Jews love Dr.

      Submitted by Charlie’s Angel on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:20.
      Real Jews love Dr. Paul…..these are just ZIONIST sOB’s!”

      “what’s wrong?

      Submitted by jblackpost on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:44.
      what’s wrong with criticizing Zionism? Considering they were a bunch of warmongering left-wing atheists and communists who only cared about establishing the state of Israel and nothing else (not even Jewish life), I think separating this horrible movement (which I hate) from the Jewish people (whom I like) is a pretty good idea.”

      “Most Jews are pretty cool aka not Zionista -look at my hero

      Submitted by sharkcity on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:45.
      Milton Friedman
      Isreal[sp] wouldn’t be much more than just another country if it were not for the apocalyptic Christian lobby aka the neocons..
      Not much difference in the right wing be it neocon, taliban, or zionist -Their all bizzacko in my book”

      “At least in this post

      Submitted by ANCAP_REASON on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 19:22.
      you differentiated between atheists and communists…
      The biggest warmongers are monotheists, specifically those of the Abraham tradition, by the way.”

      “Makes sense to me

      Submitted by Smudge Pot on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 19:59.
      in as much as “the Jewish lobby” represents the modern state of Israel. Ron never pretended to represent the 51st state in the union.”

      “Well….

      Submitted by JFEJ004 on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:08.
      It wouldn’t be the first savior they’ve killed.”

      “Samaria? You mean the

      Submitted by AtlantaIconoclast on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 23:39.
      Samaria? You mean the Occupied remnant of historic Palestine. There is no such thing as Samaria any more.”

      “This is absurd and the height

      Submitted by AtlantaIconoclast on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 23:34.
      This is absurd and the height of irony. It is the Zionist who is extreme, and that includes Christian as well as Jewish Zionists. They have bullied and use the Holocaust to scare everyone into speaking out against Israel’s policies.
      So sick of this. I don’t want us to give another penny to either Israel or its enemies.
      Why can’t be let go of the religious thing?”

      “Be Careful

      Submitted by Gary Patridge on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 21:53.
      any criticism will be construed as “Anti-Semitic”.
      When will the World figure out that Zionists are not Isrealites? Pretty sure that Zionists are not God’s chosen people…”

      “One can dislike Israel, but

      Submitted by AtlantaIconoclast on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 23:38.
      One can dislike Israel, but not have a problem with Judaism. Why would anyone, but a Jewish supremacist, or Christian Zionist LIKE the apartheid state of Israel? This is not about anti Jewish sentiment. I have no problem saying it, for I truly do not care about someone’s religion.”

      “I’m shocked!

      Submitted by BigT on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 20:54.
      You mean that rabid socialist zionist Jewish Neocons are working against freedom again??Who’da thunk it???!!
      News flash folks.?That’s all they do is work against freedom.?They are the enemy within.”

      The real challenge was finding one Ron Paul supporter willing to stand up for what is decent and right. Among a bunch of ranting, raving, Jew-hating bigots disguised as reasonable people, one person named Toledana tried to reason with the mob.

      “It doesn’t help us

      Submitted by toledana on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:39.
      when RP supporters make negative statements about Israel, Zionism, or the Jewish people. I have heard some Jews say they have been turned off to Dr. Paul because of what his supporters have said.
      It’s not surprising that Ron Paul has been banned from a Jewish debate when people like you are making negative statements about them as a people. We need to open our arms to everyone, and instead of talking badly about them as a group help to educate them about Ron Paul’s platform.
      To much of the world, America is seen in a very bad light. Do you appreciate it when people make blanket statements about American citizens saying all of us are evil and bloodthirsty?”

      Toledana’s next comment was even more insightful, especially the last line.

      “It is name calling

      Submitted by toledana on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 19:20.
      not constructive criticism. Rarely do people who use this terminology give any kind of explanation, and it comes off as angry and hateful.
      Terming people “Zionist” is collectivist thinking and polarizes our movement from Jewish people who see Israel as their homeland. Whether or not you agree with that belief is up to you…. but throwing hate their way is not helping us get any votes. Instead we are turning even moderate Jewish supporters away in disgust.
      I’ve never heard Dr. Paul use the term “Zionist” or speak the way many of the people in this thread are doing.
      Raging against the “religious right,” “Left wing extremists” and “neocons” doesn’t do us any favors either. If we want to expand the movement we need to work on being inclusive… promoting education, not name calling. We need more votes, not more enemies.
      Otherwise we are going to end up on a little life raft mumbling to ourselves.”

      Toledana is the aberration. As for the rest, this is what is infecting the Ron Paul movement. There are tons of things Dr. Paul could say or do. He has said nothing. He has done nothing.

      Silence is acquiescence, and Dr. Paul will not stand up and condemn pure evil in written and spoken form. While his followers are spouting noxious garbage, he stays silent. Therefore, when it came time to hold a Republican Jewish forum, it was perfectly appropriate for Dr. Paul to remain silent far away from the event. His supporters will speak up for him, but not for anybody else.

      This is why when his supporters complain, Jews everywhere should tune them out. They have spoken enough, and the words were pure ugliness.

      When an anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish presidential forum is held, the Paul supporters can all get together and rail about Neocons, moneylenders, bankers, merchants, Paul Wolfowitz, Wall Street, and other blood libel conspiracies.

      Actually, these forums are being held on a daily basis. They are called Internet message boards.

      Dr. Paul may wish to drop the willful blindness and see what his supporters really believe. Then he may wish to reach out to Republican Jews with any kind of outreach.

      Most likely, he will not.

      http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2011/dec/8/republican-jewish-coalition-2012-presidential-cand/

      • truthsquad

        It’s nice and all… but it sure wastes space. Put it on your diary and be done with it, already. Maybe just link to it or something.

    • center77

      as my point of few about the whole issue.

    • circlegranch

      in defending Newt’s comment and went further in criticzing Obama’s entire policy regarding the region and especially, his failure to act with respect to the drone lost in Iran.

    • biddle21

      The Palestinians should be treated as such. Including the women and children. All should be treated as 2nd class citizens since they’re not real people.

      I know the fans of Red State agree with me on this.

      • NRPax

        biddle, I think you missed the Stormfront turn off a few miles ago.

      • wennejunk

        Got to be a skinhead site waiting for you somewhere.

        They need another non-person.

      • aesthete

        Indeed, it is doubtful that the Palestinian women and children that you have concerned yourself with would fare well under Palestinian jurisprudence.

      • JSobieski

        Not a real nation is not the same thing as denying the humanity of human beings. After all, these aren’t fetuses in an abortion mill that we are talking about.

        Until you can find a pre-1945 reference to “Palestinians” that involved non-Hebrew names, your mocking of Newt’s argument is born out of an ignorance.

        • lizzie

          http://www.latma.co.il/elatmatv.aspx
          “Singing Refugeess from Tel Aviv and Bibi’s Daily Grind”
          This is the newest LatmaTV satire video from Caroline Glick, the fearless opinionatress that the palestinians and their useful idiots of the left really hate.

          I am still laughing.

          You have to make sure the English sub-titles are on – this one is even funnier than the ones featuring the Palestinian Minister of Outrage character.

          Just to explain, Israel has been trying to deal with non-Jewish immigrants, both legally on work visas, and a steady stream of Africans from Sudan, Eritrea, who get smuggled thru the Sinai by the always opportunistic Sinai bedouin tribes.

          Yes, Israel is building a fence.

          My apologies if no one follows the news to understand the nuance, but am sure you can all appreciate most of it.

          Here is The Daily Show, resolving palestinian claims to the ladn, once the Jews finally realized that the Holy Land is really in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The day when Mahmoloud Abbas stipulated that there was NO historical proof of any connection between Judaism and Jerusalem, from the podium at the United Nations:
          http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-22-2011/west-bank-story—challahfax-vs–halalifax

          My proposal for peace is that
          1) muslims need a sense of humour, and
          2) muslims need to watch Bollywood musicals.

          this seemed like the best place to post this

    • swamphermit

      For some reason the Palestinians haven’t renamed their new State yet. Maybe they like the name Gaza more that ‘Palestine’?

    • Marcus_Traianus

      If you even had a cursory knowledge of history it would be evident as to the origins of that name. In fact, if you actually read your Bible more precisely, it would give you the answers.

      For example, if one starts in the year 70, when the Romans took away the independence of Judah they started using the term “Palaestina” which was derived fro Herodutus who used it to refer to all of southern Syria- as a direct insult to the Jewish people.

      It never referred to a specific “people” or “tribe”. It was a created as a geographical distinction and not even in the same sense it is used today.

      As to Mr. Horowitz’s larger point, he is exactly correct. Even the incorrectly-called “Palestinians” are not committed to a “two-state” solution. That is evident by their actions. They are devoted to the destruction of Israel. It’s about time we admitted that publicly and stopped supporting their blatant propaganda and hypocrisy.

      • spinoneone

        is another interesting distinction. For the history buffs among us it should be noted that the area called “Palaestina” by the Romans was populated by multiple tribes of Semitic people and Romans. The tribes practiced Christianity, Judaism, worshiped Roman and Greek gods, and so on. They were part of the Byzantine Empire following about 325CE and were conquered by Arab tribes bringing Islam in 638CE. From 325CE to 638CE most of the inhabitants of “Palaestina” were Christians and Jews.

        The Crusaders re-conquered the eastern coast of the Mediterranean in in 1098CE and held Jerusalem, most of the area of today’s Israel, Lebanon, and the western part of Syria. This was retaken by the Arabs/Seljuk Turks in 1187CE.

  • hal2715

    Any discussion about the Israel/Palestine debate has to mention both sides. Acting like this is a glaringly obvious view belittles the conflict and loss of life on both sides.

    • barleycorn

      Ok I’ll mention “both sides”

      The Nation of Israel has a long history of minding its own business and only resorting to war when attacked. Its a stable democracy and a loyal friend to the USA.

      The other side is bunch of blood thirsty degenerate scum that spend their days either killing people, abusing their women, or crying about the fact that the SIX MILLION square miles controlled by Arabs isn’t enough and that they also should be given some (all) of the puny little eight thousand square miles in Israel.

      You are a pawn and a fool.

      • hal2715

        Because I recognize that there are two sides to the Israel/Palestine debate? So be it. For what it’s worth, I agree more with Israel more than with the Palestinians, but no progress will be made on the issue until both sides see that each has valid points.

        • deVere

          the only goal of the so-called Palestinians is the destruction of the State of Israel by whatever means are required.

          Furthermore, there are already two states in the Palestine mandate. Jordan is the Arab state, founded in 1921, and Israel is the Jewish state founded in 1948. Two states is enough.

          The failure of the Israelis to perceive and act on the above obvious facts is little short of suicidal.

          • wennejunk

            When most of the world’s media are telling the opposite story.

            Same problem the GOP has.

            But I agree with you.

            To Barleycorn above, we need to separate the ‘Palestinians’ from their leaders.

            Their leaders match your description above, the people for the most part would welcome peace and prosperity, as do people everywhere.

            To Hal2715, the bigger issue is about resetting the dialogue. The original post was about the historical accuracy of Israel vs. Palestine.

            If the larger discussion were framed that way, the global discussion would be different:

            The ‘two sides’ you speak of would be Israel discussing with Jordan (and Egypt and Lebanon) about what to do with those who do not want to be part of a peaceful Israeli state.

            There are many non-Jews (Arabs, Christians and other) who are happy to be part of Israel and to be citizens. They are the ‘Israelis’ today.

            There are the others who hate Israel and want it destroyed. they are the ‘Palestinians’. They should leave what was decreed to be ‘Israel’ by the UN.

          • barleycorn

            “Their leaders match your description above, the people for the most part would welcome peace and prosperity, as do people everywhere.”

            I would never claim that all members of any religious, ethnic, national, or racial group are good or bad, but a people must be held to some account for the actions of their leaders. And when the twin towers fell I don’t think that was “leaders” I saw dancing in the streets and laughing.

            We need to get past this compulsive need that we Americans have to always trim our sails when denouncing evil lest we give a tiny measure of unintended offense.

        • greyeagle

          The Palestinians had a home in Jordan until they tried to kill the King then they were tossed out of Jordan. They are constant trouble makers, which is why Jordan don’t want them. However, they could go to Jordan if they would behave themselves instead of trying to take part of the small country of Israel. The Palestinians are nothing more than terrorists, or they would not be constantly attacking Israel and electing Hamas.

  • commondream

    I understand that Newt’s paid a fortunate as a historian or lobbyist or whatever it is, but this is about far more than just history. Whether the people who lived in the Palestinian territory be called Arabs or Palestinians, they were still told that they would no longer be able to keep their property because some colonial powers decided that’s how it should be. That sounds like the epitome of big government. Is it really acceptable conservative ideology to support the displacement of people from their property?

    Let’s also look beyond Palestine. Newt’s logic, and Daniel’s, would state that the American people are an “imaginary people” as well. It’s not like our founders were ethnically American. They decided to be American and then fought for the opportunity to make it happen.

    • Tbone

      It’s really the Joooos isn’t it? Paultard.

      • hal2715

        Thanks for a clear and thoughtful response to a reasonable critique to this article. In doing so, you’ve inadvertently explained why discussions about Israel go nowhere- the moment there’s a valid criticism of Israel, epithets start being thrown around.

        • Tbone

          And another JooooHater. You guys stink right through the broadband.

          • mikeymike143

            his comments and opinions are valueless and unimportant, just like he is.

    • barleycorn

      Not only do you not know anything but you don’t even realize that there are things you don’t know.

  • aesthete

    I agree with you and Newt, but this is really an epiphany that America and the rest of the world should have had before we invested 30 years, billions of dollars, and our backing behind the two-state solution starting with the Carter administration. Israel was, interestingly enough, pursuing a one-state integrationist solution prior to Carter’s interloping with some limited successes; now, we’re invested in two failing states (for Gaza and the West Bank can hardly be said to be unified or successful). There are no good options at this point, not when there are nearly as many Palestinians living in Palestine as there are Jews living in Israel. Integration is no longer feasible as it once was; full independence and autonomy for Palestine will undoubtedly cause a raft of security problems for Israel, and limited independence will eventually devolve back to the bastardized form of same that the Palestinian Authority currently enjoys.

    • Tbone

      It seems to be what the only thing they understand.

      • aesthete

        Jordan and other countries have, too, but you wouldn’t know it from listening to the MSM.

        The Israel-Palestine conflict isn’t going to change for quite a while: the Israelis don’t have it in them to out-and-out wipe out a whole region full of people, and the Palestinians sure aren’t going to be reconciling with the Little Satan any time soon, especially if their leaders (political and religious) can help it.

      • barleycorn

        I don’t think they have much longer to wait either.

      • David123

        There have been a few military vs. military wars and Israel has always won. So the Arabs have declared open season on Jewish civilians because they can’t beat the Jews militarily.

        What’s good for one should be good for the other. Curtis LeMay persuaded the Japanese that peace was a good thing with less than 6 months of heavy bombing.

        • tomatin

          What Israel is going to start to bomb their own country?

          Believe me I’m on Israel’s side. I’m just not envisioning your solution from a logistical standpoint.

          • wennejunk

            Its those in Gaza, West Bank and on the outside, scratching at the fence to come and bag their quota of Jews: those are the ones he’s referring to.

            Most of the non-Jewish residents within the confines of what is today’s Israel are busy trying to live productive lives.

            That said, going after civilians as the terrorists do will not do anything for Israel.

            Going after every single leader who foments hate and coordinates with Iran and other sponsors – that will begin to change the equation.

          • renl57

            As long as a people are sympathetic to terrorism, there will be no shortage of terrorists or terrorist leaders.

            You kill one, they find another. You kill that one, they find another.

          • Tbone

            Get a line started.

  • tomatin

    It was a British colony and they created the Palestinian state. The point is it was an amorphous multi-cultural region before the Brits created a nominal state.

    Face it Israel is the only country we can trust in the region.

    Not one Arab state has been able to handle democracy

    This is the truth Newt was bringing forth.

    • nathanalbright

      …even though I am of the opinion that even though a Palestinian ethnic identity did not exist in 1948 (given that Arab nationalism was really only a factor from World War I, about a generation after Jewish nationalism really got started in the modern era), the actions of both Jordan and Egypt in refusing to treat the Arabs of the Gaza Strip and West Bank as their own citizens but rather as refugees for political reasons has led to the development of a ‘Palestinian’ ethnic identity, and that is pretty troublesome.

  • dajeeps

    The truth about them – whatever we call them – is that they are used somewhat like the Native Americans were by the European powers of the 18th to early 19th century to fight proxy wars here on our soil. They are psychologically abused by the powers around them to keep them all riled up and on the ready for much bigger battles. Thoughts of peace there are merely an illusion until those powers are diminished, if it is even possible at all after the psychological poisoning and hate conditioning that has gone on. It does not matter how much land Israel gives up, or how many settlements they tear down – peace is not in the interest of especially the oil producing states around them as disruptions of nearly any kind jack up the price of oil. They profit from violence and instability hundreds of miles away.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    … and, among the belongings they left when they died in the 1070′s, was a little tin box with a coin-slot in it. It was passed out at their Temple right after the war, and it was labeled “Pennies for Palestine”.

    They spoke of two peoples: Palestinian Arabs, and Palestinian Jews. And Grampa was fairly Zionist, saying that if the Jews could have their own, concrete nation, they could never again be persecuted in other countries as rootless squatters. Gramma, a bit more prescient, perhaps, was less Zionist, saying that if all the Jews wound up in one place, they would be easier to kill.

    But, both referred to “Palestinians” as both the Arabs and the Jews residing in the region. Their benchmark went back further, even, than the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement, which included a quasi-international nation called “Palestine”, which includes all of modern day Israel, and significant portions of what was then called “Transjordan”. “Palestine” existed, certainly, but, just as “Californians” are not a race, neither are “Palestinians”, period.

    The leftists throughout the world have always manipulated the language. For example, although I am not an American Indian, I AM a “Native American”– I was born here, as were my parents. However, I am manifestly NOT an “aboriginal American”. These used to be important distinctions, but, the meaning of the words have been lost because of leftist manipulations.

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jacobson get2djnow

      were Jewish. Okay, bonafides established. The fact that people “spoke” of Palestine, does not make such a fictional place “real.” There was supposed to be a country established alongside Israel for the Arabs in the area, see above for an extensive, & accurate exposition on the subject. The ARABS fled ISRAEL, when the Jewish state welcomed them and begged them to stay! EVERY ARAB neighbor attacked the fledgling country, a war made much more difficult to win because the damned Brits were predisposed to hating Jews almost as much as the Arabs and the Germans. It is not the fault of Israel that the Arabs in the area left their ancestral homes. Now they can’t go back. This is the result of betting on the wrong horse. Sorry, you freaking LOSE!

      That said, and agreeing with your digression that leftists use wordplay and the systematic destruction of language to lie, what was your point?

      • conservativecurmudgeon

        And that makes Newt correct– “Palestinian” is an invented ethnicity– with a little “asterisk”. And, again, I say “region”, not nation, not state. Region.

        Much like, say, “Appalachia”, and it does have historical significance for both Arabs AND Jews. One might be a Resident of the US, a citizen of Virginia, as still be an “Appalachian”.

        And, even as late as the early 1970′s, most observers referred to the inhabitants thus: “Palestinian ARABS (as opposed to “Palestinian Jews”)” And, yes, according to the 1948 Partition, there was supposed to be an Arab homeland established –but, the Arabs instead opted for war. Even though the Arabs were offered 75 % of the area of Transjordan through the Balfour Declaration, it wasn’t enough.

        And, you are exactly correct: The Arabs, by virtue of their smoldering hatred of the Jews, bet on the wrong horse, and they lost. But, now what? I think the first thing the West has to do is stop getting it’s panties all a-twist by pointy-headed transnational organizations redrawing lines on maps, no matter how well intentioned.

        Actually, the Brits had a passable tolerance for the Jewish folks in their empire. The French, on the other hand, are, and remain, virulently Anti-Semetic.

  • lizzie

    Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon has an official “State of Israel” Youtube channel with three, so far, videos to clarify history, usually only the 20th century era. (Memo to Romney in tonight’s debate: PM Netanyahu knows there is an Official State of Israel Youtube channel that clearly makes same point as Gingrich has)
    ,
    Here is the official channel:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyAyalon?feature=watch

    In the second video, at the 48 second mark, MK Ayalon starts to make the same exact point made by Newt Gingrich:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&src_vid=QAuBc_cbXo0&annotation_id=annotation_153809&v=XGYxLWUKwWo
    “Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank”
    July 12, 2011 “Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon explains the historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The video explains where the terms “West Bank”, “occupied territories” and “67 Borders” originated and how they are incorrectly used and applied”

    MK Ayalon’s #3 video is excellent at explaining the “refugee” issue.

    The best, most clear timeline of Israel’s history can be found at comment
    # 4. Pragmatist at Bryan Preston’s PJM debate analysis:
    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/10/a-unexpected-wager-an-invented-people-and-a-private-sector-historian-recap-of-the-gop-debate/?singlepage=true

    Consider that President Obama just officially celebrated Hanukkah, not on the first night of December 21, 2011, but on December 8, 2011, coincidentally the 24th anniversary of the First Intifada launched from Gaza.
    I think it very important to have a President who is willing to support the Israeli government in acknowledging real history.

    Many thought the Obama White House was offensive in changing the date of Hanukkah for a photo-op, and lighting all eight candles at once.

    I find it treacherously insulting to “celebrate” the Jewish holiday that commemorates, as Pragmatist wrote, “The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from: * The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C.”

    on the anniversary of another palestinian ‘rebellion’
    against ‘Zionist “occupation”‘.

    Obama just declared War on Hanukkah!

    • pttx333

      much of what b.o. does which insults others is intentional and not from ignorance. I realize that my thorough dislike of the man and everything he is about colors what I think, but I do still wonder. There have been far too many instances where he has insulted nations, heads of state, and entire ethnicities for his actions to have been an “oversight” of some sort. Nor does he always adhere to proper protocol and traditions.

      Is it just me? I’m very offended and embarrassed for our beloved nation by most everything he does, and I can’t even imagine how you must feel.

  • renl57

    In the 1970s, Golda Meir said much the same thing as Newt just said.

    And I think they’re right.

    But so what???

    Now that we’ve got that, what *policy* flows from that, a policy which the U.S. should then pursue?

    Newt isn’t trying to become professor of a political science department, he’s trying to become POTUS. And by delving into history without using that history as a motivator for policy, he’s not acting like a President should act.

    The implication of Newt’s statement is that the people who call themselves Palestinians should just settle in Jordan. Sorry, that ship has sailed. They’ll never accept that, and the low-level war against Israel will just continue.

    Sometimes history leads to effective policy. Sometimes it’s just irrelevant to today.

    A lot of AmerIndians believe that Americans took their ancient lands by force and/or deception. They have a point. They were here first. But if they then told CNN, “And therefore, all those who call themselves ‘Americans’ should withdraw back east of the Appalachians,” everyone would know that they’re nuts.

    • floridaveteran

      The Indian tribes entered America from the west most fleeing persecution and some to conquer. The European tribes entered America from the east most fleeing persecution and some to conquer. One was earlier in their move than the other. Both were not originally from America.

      The European tribes and then the American tribe conquered the other tribes. Just as the Indian tribes warred against each other the American tribe warred against the Indians. They lost.

  • spinoneone

    is discussed in great detail by Daniel Pipes here. Jordan annexed the West Bank following the 1948 war. It “devolved” the territory in 1988.

    http://www.danielpipes.org/298/is-jordan-palestine

    • avagreen

      I was reading through all this to see if anyone had posted this piece from Daniel Pipes.
      He is a great historian of the people in that area.

  • johnt

    at Gingrich, guess they couldn’t find enough Republicans when they needed them. Gingrich has to be a worthhile candidate, what with all those people, and the right ones, hating him. That is the real endorsement.

    • http://www.patriotpowerhour.com patriotpowerhour

      Then sit an wonder why 4 years from now things have only gotten worse.
      If Gingrich Romney, Perry, Bachman or Obama win the following will still be true for years from now.

      The Dollar will be worth less
      The Economy will still be bad
      We will still be in endless wars
      We will still be involved in endless welfare
      You will own less and have less
      Your children will be less safe
      You will be less safe
      You will have less privacy.
      You will still be ranting against Ron Paul who predicted this 4 years ago.
      You might wake up, but not likely.

      . Don’t argue, just mark my words and re-paste them 4 years from now.

      • johnt

        Saviors don’t happen, dreams die, libertarian heros sell out, Obama destroys, choices must be made. Oh, and neither coices nor life is perfect. Lay back on your bed of nails & imagine four more years of The O. Bye.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        patriotstupidforever.

  • annas

    The thing that concerns me about Gingrich is his expansive approach to everything. He has a new sound bite every day. It is going to take a steady hand and a level head to hold tough and move Washington in the direction we want. A great debater is not necessarily a great leader. Think about what we have now-a silver tongued talker who is about as effective and uniting as my Chihuahua.

  • BigRedConservative

    The Palestinian people do not exist until they themselves choose to exist. Previously they identified themselves as Transjordanian, Arab, Ottoman etc. But if they consider themselves Palestinian, then they have a right to a homeland. If in two hundred years time they no longer identify as Palestinian, then they forfeit that aforementioned right. But the point stands that a significant number of people in the area demarcated Palestine by the UN in 1945 now believe themselves to be Palestinian, and thus throwing them in with Jordan would be the equivalent of conjoining Sweden and Norway because they speak roughly the same language and used to be under one rule.

    On the other hand, however, I find it hard to trust “Palestinians” to rule a country contiguous with Israel fairly and secularly. But if Jordan can (quite successfully) do it, then I hope the former Transjordanians can too.

  • wbedding

    as a student of history, both American and World Civilization, i must admit that this is the best piece i have ever seen written about the background and history of this region. Mr. Horowitz is as well versed in the history of the region as anyone i have ever encountered. while i feel the jury is still out about Newt as the GOP/Conservative choice for the nomination, you cannot discount his ability to comprehend the geopolitical environment. glad there was finally a debate of some substance.

    • bobguzzardi

      Newt Gingrich deserves a lot of credit for putting this issue into national discourse that has been dominated by Liberals and Appeasers.

      • renl57

        Newt didn’t put any “issue” into our national discourse.

        Instead, he gave us a history lesson.

        The *issue* is what America’s *policy* toward the Middle East should be.

        And so I decided to check it out for myself.

        In the “Solutions” section in Newt’s website, there isn’t one word about Middle East policy. Israel isn’t even mentioned. Nor is Egypt. Nor is the Muslim Brotherhood or the “Arab Spring” movement.

        http://www.newt.org/solutions

        Whereas Romney has an extensive discussion of that issue on his campaign website.

        • acat

          then I’d like a couple shovelfuls for my garden.

          Mew

  • bobguzzardi

    Another terrorist state in the Middle East will not reduce violence and terrorism nor advance peace.

    • dcacklam

      because unlike a stateless ‘civillian population’ the Palis would be responsible for their actions towards Israel…

      And any actions by agents of the newly-formed Palestinian govt against Israel would be legitimately an act of war…. And given that all of the ‘parties’ in the Palestinian Authority political system are anti-Israel terror groups….

      The likelihood of someone associated with this new ‘state’ government sponsoring or participating in hostilities against Israel is pretty damn high…

      Personally, the only way I can see a Pali ‘state’ going, is straight to war with Israel – and that would end about as well for them as Costa Rica attacking the USA.

      So the only way they could stay a ‘state’ is if major foreign powers protected them from themselves and the Izzys…

      • acat

        I read somewhere that the original plan called for Israel to be surrounded by a demilitarized zone, enforced by U.N. peacekeepers…. don’t have a cite for it offhand, though.

        If so, sounds like you’re re-inventing the initial proposal.

        And I agree with your assertion, except it’d start with Costa Rica, followed quickly by Columbia, Dominican Republic, Cuba, and some disavowed elements of the Mexican army … against a country about the size of New Hampshire….

        Mew

        • dcacklam

          Was for 2 nations, one Jewish & one Arab…

          The Arabs didn’t accept that, and went ‘all in’ on a military ‘solution’ – resulting in the first Arab-Israeli war… Arabs in both the Jewish and Arab areas were advised to leave & come back after the presumed Arab victory….

          Arabs lost, Israel captured the land that was originally going to be theirs had they left well enough alone, and that’s the start of all this in modern times…

          Arab Refugees from that war set up camps in Lebanon and Jordan – the first ‘Palistinians’ as we know them today….

  • reaganbuckley

    They have a common culture, language and history. They may have been part of the Ottoman empire in the past, but clearly now they identify mainly as a nation. They probably have more in common as a “nation” than the “nations” of Pakistan and Afghanistan who have different ethnic groups and languages.

    • acat

      and we can talk.

      Mew

      • reaganbuckley

        purr

        • acat

          they are not capable of being a nation.

          Mew

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          then both the West Bank and Gaza should have been bombed into pebbles several decades ago.

          • reaganbuckley

            no text

          • acat

            will not remain a nation for very long.

            Mew

  • lizzie

    I Jordan, a majority of people are identified as palestinians, but the King is a Hashemite, and the bedouin tribes of Jordan are now calling for the palestinians to be stripped of Jordanian citizenship. Jordan is the only member of the Arab League that was legally allowed (by the Arab League) to confer citizenship on the arabs who chose to leave what is now Israel and the “West Bank” provinces of Judea and Samaria.

    The Hashemite dynasty was given Trans-Jordan by the British because they were the historical protectors (Sharif) of Mecca, and the House of Saud wanted Mecca.

    Meanwhile the Circassians who wound up in what is now Jordan, are the trusted personal guards of King Abdullah.
    I do not know how many Arab Christians are also citizens oof Jordan.

    It is all very complicated, but Gingrich is historically correct, and about time someone challenged the new historical narrative that denies ANY presence of Judaism anywhere in any square inch of what is now Israel or Jerusalem.

    Mahmoud Abbas had the boldness to deny any historical link between Judaism and the Western Wall of Jerusalem when he made his pitch for palestinian statehood at the podium of the United Nations General Assembly.

    check the transcript!

    I am not observant, but it is truly appalling that Obama enables this fiction, which is what is being taught in American and European universities!

    Michelle Bachmann was absolutely correct in her debate point about the hate-filled textbooks that are partly paid for with American foreign aid that supports the eternal welfare state of palestinian victimhood in refugee camps in Gaza, Judea, Samaria, Lebanon, Syria. Yes, they are still forced to live in refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria, now into the fourth generation.

    America had the sense to change the textbooks in post-WW2 Germany and Japan in order to expunge the militarism out of those cultures.

    NO American president has done the same with the palestinians. Bush43 tried to do something, but Saudi Arabia actually pays for most of what passes for textbooks throughout the world of Sunni Islam.

    sorry for the rant. It really does make a difference when the American President tells the truth.

    no, I do not think Obama is a secret muslim. I think he is a secular humanist like his mother, who went to college when the “imperialism/colonialism was the source of all that is wrong with the world” historical narrative had taken root.

    And then spent twenty years believing what Farrakhan and Khalidi spewed.

    America needs to be oil-independent. Then China can go-Genghis again and

    I am going to stop here :)

    • lizzie

      Obama went to college when the ?imperialism/colonialism is the source of all that is wrong with the world? historical narrative had taken root.

      That is why he returned the bust of Winston Churchill (ardent Imperialist) to the British Embassy.

      When I went back to grad school in 2003 to teach global studies, I had to take a lot of history classes to satisfy the college credit requirement – reading history on your own does not count.

      I had the best professor of British history, but had to audit his class on Imperialism because it was only for undergraduates.
      I had to stop going when I realized this Harvard-trained academic had thoroughly bought into the new narrative.

      And I have encountered too many younger ‘well-educated’ people online who have utter contempt for the legacy of the British Empire, which certainly DID make many bad moves, but, compared to all the other 18th-19th century empires, at least left a legacy of a partiality for democracy, a justice system,
      the English language, and cricket. Compare that to the legacy of the Spanish, French, Ottomans, and Russian Empires.

      Not like anyone is bashing the Vikings (Denmark and Norway) for having been the first global terrorists! Normandy was 9th century Paris’s bribe to stop the Norsemen from their annual terror attack. hence, Norsemen’s land is named Normandy.

      well -s ee y’all next week.

      another debate, anoher poll, another mile in the marathon.

  • truthsquad

    Why do we have to be involved in this dumb dispute at all?

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      .

  • expanding_man

    I suspect there are many good arguments on both sides. However, Israel is our ally and that must count for something. Our country is broke. We spend something like $3.7 Trillion a year and take in only about $2.5 Trillion a year. We need to stop sending all of the nations in the middle east our $. I believe that we should let Israel do as it pleases with respect to the Palestinians. If they want to build settlements in the West Bank, we shouldn’t interfere. If they want to strike back at their enemies, we shouldn’t interfere. Let them buy weapons, etc. from us. We shouldn’t dictate what our allies do unless its in our direct interest. Having said that, we shouldn’t give Israel $.

    • snapperhead

      I could not have said that any better,thank you.

  • snapperhead

    I am a Newt Gingrich supporter.i was disappointed to see the author state that Israel was ‘invaded”,a simple 1 minute Google search would’ve helped clear this up.
    in ’1967′ Israel launched a surprise,preemptive strike because of the Arabs threats,rhetoric and sabre-rattling.
    Israel was not invaded.

    so says the Jewish Virtual Library for example; http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MF1967.html

  • Pingback: read more