Posted on 12/12/2011 3:43:10 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Last Friday, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, did something revolutionary. He told the truth about the Palestinians. In an interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich said that the Palestinians are an “invented” people, “who are in fact Arabs.”
His statement about the Palestinians was entirely accurate. At the end of 1920, the “Palestinian people” was artificially carved out of the Arab population of “Greater Syria.” “Greater Syria” included present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. That is, the Palestinian people were invented 91 years ago. Moreover, as Gingrich noted, the term “Palestinian people” only became widely accepted after 1977.
As Daniel Pipes chronicled in a 1989 article on the subject in The Middle East Quarterly, the local Arabs in what became Israel opted for a local nationalistic “Palestinian” identity in part due to their sense that their brethren in Syria were not sufficiently committed to the eradication of Zionism.
Since Gingrich spoke out on Friday, his factually accurate statement has been under assault from three directions. First, it has been attacked by Palestinian apologists in the postmodernist camp. Speaking to CNN, Hussein Ibish from the American Task Force on Palestine argued that Gingrich’s statement was an outrage because while he was right about the Palestinians being an artificial people, in Ibish’s view, Israelis were just as artificial. That is, he equated the Palestinians’ 91-year-old nationalism with the Jews’ 3,500-year-old nationalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
I am so sick of the lily-livered whining twits we have acting as our "leaders". America didn't become great - and save the world - through political correctness. We did it through guts, determination, and telling everyone exactly how things are.
Caroline Glick is my favorite. She gets it.
Everyone: Be sure to read her entire column and absorb her last paragraph.
Listening to Newt is almost becoming like therapy. He speaks with such logic and intellect, not to mention gut honesty.
We could all use a dose of that these days. In fact we NEED a dose of that these days!
Well, we also broke, killed and blew up those who threatened our liberty. (Not to mention other countries who needed help in doing the same.)
There was a thread a couple weeks ago arguing that Gingrich is a lot like Churchill. Gingrich's comments are a good example of this comparison. He knows who the enemy is and who are allies are. I was happy to see at the debate that Perry supported Gingrich's comments and turned the question he was asked into a comment on obama's horrendous foreign policy in the Middle East.
I'm with Gingrich on this. To heck with political correctness we need to stand with our friends and put fear in the hearts of our enemies.
"Gingrich’s statement of truth was not an act of irresponsible flame throwing. It was the beginning of an antidote to Obama’s abandonment of truth and reason in favor of lies and appeasement. And as such, it was not a cause for anger. It was a cause for hope."
Glick points out that the Gingrich attackers and Jennifer Rubin (called by Glick, "the attackers’ most outspoken representative") acknowledge that Gingrich spoke the truth but condemn his statement as "irresponsible and unstatesmanlike."
Unstatesmanlike ---- lol; lol; lol
Actually I see Perry doing that. I worry Gingrich would just want to give him a history lesson.
Corollary: I am so sick of the lily-livered whining (anti-Newt) twits we have acting as FReepers.
Yes, indeed, and she took Newt’s side against Romney too.
No room for moderates and moderation. Israel deserves the truth and a fighter on her side.
I see Perry joining Newt’s cabinet. Like SOD, or perhaps SOI. (Drill here, Drill now!)
I actually smell a landslide coming. Newt makes way too much sense. One tends to forget their political bias when someone like Newt comes along with the ability to blur their own rhetoric.
Just posted the JPost article on my FaceBook page.
What is “statemenlike” or “statesmanship” in the Middle East Peace Process?
The same old, same old, that’s been going nowhere for decades?
The same terrorist attacks on Israel from those peace-loving Pali’s? The same threats by Israel’s peace-loving neighbors to blow the Jewish state off the map? More housing freezes? Re-setting of the Jewish state’s hard fought land boundaries? The new emergence of the Arab Spring Muslim Brotherhood neighbors like Egypt, promoted by the peace-loving Obama regime?
How about Iran with nukes? Syria going bezerk. Don’t look at Pakistan or Iraq and Afghanistan or you’ll find that good ole “statesmanship” there on full display too.
I’ll take Gingrich, thankyouverymuch, and I’ll hope, work and pray he’s President Gingrich-elect come November 2012.
Or vice versa. I think Perry is view much more favorably by married women with children than Gingrich is. I'm just going by what my wife and some of her friends are saying. They just don't want to let the adultery stuff go. I don't know all the details. I don't care to know all the details. From what I've seen all the children seem fine and as far as I know he gets along with his ex-wives. However, in my limited understanding of women I've noticed that they tend not to forgive and forget.
Then by your logic, it looks like they will vote for Obama because he is a “good family man” and husband? Or he especially has nice hair and dresses up good?
At this point Newt is doing well, but there are a lot of undecided and the support is not strong. IOW, the polls can change pretty quickly.
Then by your logic, it looks like they will vote for Obama because he is a “good family man” and husband?
Try and think of who are Pub voters in the primaries vs Rat voters in the primaries. A high % of married women with children vote Pub. A high % of single moms, or single women vote Rat. The Rats could care less about the character of their candidates so long as they promise to have "big daddy govt" take care of them. Married women with children place a high priority on character because that is such a big component of marriage and it is the "family unit" that provides for the children. This is why the personal life of a candidate in the Pub party matters and in the Rat party it doesn't.
Or he especially has nice hair and dresses up good?
What is in the water? Everyone seems to have to be "snippy" these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.