And now this? At New York Times, "Damage Control From Gingrich on Palestinians."You know, Gingrich isn't my man, but the backlash is completely typical of the Israel annihilation industry. See Wall Street Journal, "Gingrich’s Palestinian Comments Draw Flak":
According to the AP, Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi said that Mr. Gingrich had “lost touch with reality” and that his comments were “a cheap way to win (the) pro-Israel vote.”The Romney people are extremely annoying. And I'm with Pamela on this whole affair:
A pair of Mr. Romney’s surrogates said Mr. Gingrich’s comments were evidence that the former House speaker is a loose cannon who struggles to stay on message.
“I’m not sure that statement gets us any closer to accomplishing an agenda,” former Ambassador Mary Kramer, a Romney supporter, said Friday on a conference call with reporters. “That’s one of the things that makes me a little nervous about Speaker Gingrich.”
Mr. Romney has adopted a choreographed approach to campaigning. “Gov. Romney is much more disciplined in his approach and much more thoughtful about the things he says,” said Renee Schulte, an Iowa State Representative and one of the Romney campaign’s Iowa co-chairs. “This comment is just another example of the difference between the two.”
Finally, the biggest lie of the late twentieth century has been called just that, a lie. And while I have many issues with New Gingrich (Bachmann or Santorum would be infinitely better), Gingrich must be heralded for speaking the truth about Yaser Arafat's enduring annihilationist narrative, the "Palestinian".And of course, I'm not with Doug Mataconis, who's a leading paleocon member of the Israel annihilation industry: "Newt Gingrich Calls Palestinians an “Invented People”."
There is no "two-state solution" to the Middle East "crisis," because the so-called "Palestinians" don't want one. See Melanie Phillips:
For peace to be achieved, the belligerent has to stop making war. The Arabs have made war on the Jews in their ancient homeland since Israel became a state and indeed for three decades before that. For a solution to be arrived at, it’s necessary correctly to state the problem. The problem is not the absence of a state of Palestine. The problem is that the Arabs want to get rid of Israel.You got that, Doug?
More at Memeorandum.
5 comments:
Gingrich is spot-on. He should not backtrack. This is an important issue. It's not that the people were not there, but there was no Palestine. They were largely Syrians and desert nomads.
Gingrich needs to buck up and tell these Palestinian "experts" to read the real history. Maybe Newt will gather the documents and show them himself. If not, I can provide them for him. LOL!
Maggie@Maggie's Notebook
http://maggiesnotebook
Thanks Maggie!
Memo to Newt: You are a smart guy. This means you will say stuff that is accurate but controversial. In such situations, backtracking is counter-productive. The only explanation needed is "is it what it is."
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
Newt Gingrich is absolutely correct. The "Palestians" are Arabs who lived on territory of the former Ottoman Empire, an area technically known as the Southern Levant. And the word "Palestinian" is derived from the "Philistines," the people who occupied the area during the Roman Empire.
It's you that needs the history lesson, both Donald Douglas and commenters. If you want to call Palestinians an "invented" people who are really Arabs who lived in the former Ottoman Empire, go right ahead, but they are no more an "invented" people than Israelis are. Israel did not exist before 1948; what is now called Israel was also a part of the Ottoman Empire, until 1918, and after that it was a part of the British Empire. Israel was created out of what used to be called Palestine, and it's just as "invented" as any other present-day nation that used to be part of the Ottoman Empire -- and that includes most of the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia Minor, as well as most of Eastern and Southern Europe.
To Unknown, no, you are wrong, and don't condemn Donald's commenters because of what I said. Newt is right, and he could have gone so much further.
When the Romans conquered, they changed Judea to Palestina. There is some evidence that the real Palestinians migrated from islands around Greece. Whatever. They would have married with Arabs, surely. The point is, when Rome drove the Jews out of the Holy Land, not all went, and many who did returned. The Palestinian theory is that Jews have not been in the Holy Land from time immemorial, but that's bs. There is plenty of evidence to show that the area is their homeland.
Palestinians are nomads, and the term wasn't really even used much until the 6 days War.
Muslim Officials are on the record saying that the only time Arabs held the land was for no more than 22 years, at the longest. They also on the record saying that they had to create a "right of return." British officials are on the record saying similar.
There are thousands of pages of evidence. It's incontrovertible. Newt was simply saying that Palestinians are Arabs. What he didn't say, is that the name came from the Romans, referring to Greek island migrants.
Israel did not exist as a nation but it was already their homeland. Remember that the League of Nations gave a huge area of land for the Nation of Israel - including what is now Jordan. The Brits who were trustees for the declaration, changed it, and bowed to the Saudi King, along with other concessions. Israel ended up with a tiny strip - and they didn't complain. They took what they could get. When immediately, the Arab world came against them, literally, they took back what they could get.
It's an argument that needs discussion to clear the air and put the documentation into the public realm.
Maggie@MaggiesNotebook
http://maggiesnotebook.com
Post a Comment