Posted on 12/11/2011 4:57:48 AM PST by humblegunner
DES MOINES, Iowa Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said he supports a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that includes two separate states, but he did not step back Saturday from his assertion that Palestinians are an invented people, an incendiary comment that infuriated one side in the Mideast peace process.
The burden to show a willingness to reach a peace accord with the Israelis lies squarely with the Palestinians, he said.
When the president keeps talking about a peace process while Hamas keeps firing missiles into Israel, if we had a country next to us firing missiles, how eager would we be to sit down and negotiate? Gingrich told a veterans forum in Des Moines, before participating in a nationally televised debate with six other GOP candidates vying for the presidential nomination.
Palestinian officials reacted furiously on Saturday to Gingrichs assertion, accusing the Republican presidential hopeful of incitement and staging a cheap stunt to court the Jewish vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.chron.com ...
Peggy Noonan wrote yesterday,
What they fear is that he will show just enough discipline over the next few months, just enough focus, to win the nomination. And then, in the fall of 2012, once party leaders have come around and the GOP is fully behind him, he will begin baying at the moon. He will start saying wild things and promising that he may bomb Iran but he may send a special SEAL team in at night to secretly dig Iran up, and fly it to Detroit, where we can keep it under guard, and Detroiters can all get jobs as guards, "solving two problems at once." They're afraid he'll start saying, "John Paul was great, but most of that happened after I explained the Gospels to him..."
>>You some kind of foreign person or what?<<
No, but your way of thinking is not necessarily the way “America” thinks. And you don’t think for me.
Just lookin’ at history ~ there’s a lot of it. I’ve had ancestors in this “country” for ALL OF IT.
Just lookin’ at history ~ there’s a lot of it. I’ve had ancestors in this “country” for ALL OF IT.
Somewhere this morning I read that his daughter was in the audience, pantomiming to him to smile more. Perhaps what you saw were his responses to her?
This may be the only thing Noot has ever gotten right.
>> “The true Palestinian tribe was killed off a couple of thousand years ago.” <<
.
The so-called palestinians are the remnant of Esau, not the Phoenicians. The surviving Phoenicians are in Scicily and Corsica.
Actually Sarah Palin was the first to say it like it is, when she correctly identified the “Palestinians” as Edom. Noot can be forgiven for his ignorance of that detail, since he spent his life as a Bible avoider. His statement is partially true.
>> “Thay are a problem and their We have been here forever deal is what is nutty.” <<
.
Where they have been for 4000 years is in what is now known as southern Jordan. They are a remnant, partially bred, of “Edom.”
Newt Gingrich and the "Invented" Palestinian PeopleDaniel Pipes confirms Newt Gingrich "absolutely correct".
LOL!
Mine were here before it was a country. Before white man. It doesn’t give me the right to speak for “America”. Nor you.
You seem to be talking about some other topic and I'm not quite sure what that might be.
Now, about when the "white folks came to America" I have a small Clovis collection and mine and a whole bunch of other folk's Clovis points tell us that EUROPEANS got here at least 14,000 years ago and maybe 20,000 years ago.
So there! You might check and see if you have the X-factor gene sequence that says you have Sa'ami ancestry (just like me).
The dispute with the Palestinian top dog is very simple ~ HE says it's an insult to say your nationality was invented. In the Americas that's just crazy talk. We all live in "invented nation" with "invented nationalities".
Newt is right. They are Arabs. At best you could call them from Jordan as the country was split in 1948. Israel was created as was Jordan. Its time for this American Political correctness with the Arabs to end. The
Arabs want to kill us and we want to be nice to them. Go figure.
>>So there!<<
Are you seven?
2. The Mandate for Palestine Document1920 - Original territory assigned to the Jewish National Home![]() 1922 - Final territory assigned to the Jewish National Home![]() The ICJ, in noting it would briefly analyze the status of the territory concerned, and the Historical background, fails to cite the true and relevant content of the historical document, the Mandate for Palestine.1 The Mandate for Palestine [E.H., the Court refers to as Mandate] laid down the Jewish right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day. The legally binding Mandate for Palestine document, was conferred on April 24 1920, at the San Remo Conference and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sevres on August 10 1920. The Mandates terms were finalized on July 24 1922, and became operational in 1923. In paragraphs 68 and 69 of the opinion, ICJ states it will first determine whether or not the construction of that wall breaches international law. The opinion quotes hundreds of documents as relevant to the case at hand, but only a few misleading paragraphs are devoted to the Mandate. Moreover, when it comes to discussing the significance of the founding document regarding the status of the territory in question situated between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including the State of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza the ICJ devotes a mere 237 murky words to nearly 30 years of history when Great Britain ruled the land it called Palestine. All the more remarkable, the ICJ thinks that the Mandate for Palestine was the founding document for Arab Palestinian self-determination! The ICJs faulty reading of the Mandate.
The judges choose to speak of Palestine in lieu of the actual wording of the historic document that established the Mandate for Palestine territory of Palestine.3 The latter would demonstrate that Palestine is a geographic designation, and not a polity. In fact, Palestine has never been an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people, distinct from other Arabs, appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule. Local Arabs during that rule were actually considered part of and subject to the authority of Greater Syria (Suriyya al-Kubra). The ICJ, throughout its lengthy opinion, chooses to speak incessantly of Palestinians and Palestine as an Arab entity, failing to define these two terms and making no clarification as to the nature of the Mandate for Palestine. Palestine is a geographical area, not a nationality.Below is a copy of the document as filed at the British National Archive describing the delineation of the geographical area called Palestine:
Like a mantra, Arabs, the UN, its organs and now the International Court of Justice have claimed repeatedly that the Palestinians are a native people so much so that almost everyone takes it for granted. The problem is that a stateless Palestinian people is a fabrication. The word Palestine is not even Arabic.4 In a report by His Majestys Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, the British made it clear: Palestine is not a State but is the name of a geographical area.5 The ICJ Bench creates the impression that the League of Nations was speaking of a nascent state or national grouping the Palestinians who were one of the communities mentioned in Article 22 of the League of Nations. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Mandate for Palestine was a Mandate for Jewish self-determination. It appears that the Court ignored the content of this most significant legally-binding document regarding the status of the Territories. Paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations reads:
The Palestinian [British] Royal Commission Report of July 1937 addresses Arab claims that the creation of the Jewish National Home as directed by the Mandate for Palestine violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, arguing that they are the communities mentioned in paragraph 4:
The second paragraph of the preamble of the Mandate for Palestine therefore reads:
The ICJ erred in identifying the Mandate for Palestine as a Class A Mandate.The Inernational Court of Justice also assumed that the Mandate for Palestine was a Class A mandate,10 a common, but inaccurate assertion that can be found in many dictionaries and encyclopedias, and is frequently used by the pro-Palestinian media. In paragraph 70 of the opinion, the Court erroneously states that:
Indeed, Class A status was granted to a number of Arab peoples who were ready for independence in the former Ottoman Empire, and only to Arab entities.12 Palestinian Arabs were not one of these Arab peoples. The Palestine Royal Report clarifies this point:
The Palestine Royal Report highlights additional differences:
Identifying the Mandate for Palestine as Class A was vital to the ICJ.There is much to be gained by attributing Class A status to the Mandate for Palestine. If the inhabitants of Palestine were ready for independence under a Class A mandate, then the Palestinian Arabs that made up the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine in 1922 (589,177 Arabs vs. 83,790 Jews)17 could then logically claim that they were the intended beneficiaries of the Mandate for Palestine provided one never reads the actual wording of the document: 1. The Mandate for Palestine18 never mentions Class A status at any time for Palestinian Arabs. 2. Article 2 clearly speaks of the Mandatory as being:
The Mandate calls for steps to encourage Jewish immigration and settlement throughout Palestine except east of the Jordan River. Historically, therefore, Palestine was an anomaly within the Mandate system, in a class of its own initially referred to by the British as a special regime.19 Political rights were granted to Jews only.Had the ICJ Bench examined all six pages of the Mandate for Palestine document, it would have also noted that several times the Mandate for Palestine clearly differentiates between political rights referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs) because political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed in three other parallel Class A mandates in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Again, the Bench failed to do its history homework. For instance, Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine states explicitly that the Mandatory should:
Eleven times in the Mandate for Palestine the League of Nations speaks specifically of Jews and the Jewish people, calling upon Great Britain to create a nationality law to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. There is not one mention of the word Palestinians or the phrase Palestinian Arabs, as it is exploited today. The non-Jewish communities the Mandate document speaks of were extensions (or in todays parlance, diaspora communities) of another Arab people for whom a separate mandate had been drawn up at the same time: the Syrians that the International Court of Justice ignored in its so-called Historical background of the Mandate system.20 Consequently, it is not surprising that a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, stated in his testimony in 1937 before the Peel Commission:
The term Palestinian in its present connotation had only been invented in the 1960s to paint Jews who had adopted the term Israelis after the establishment of the State of Israel as invaders now residing on Arab turf. The ICJ was unaware that written into the terms of the Mandate, Palestinian Jews had been directed to establish a Jewish Agency for Palestine (today, the Jewish Agency), to further Jewish settlements, or that since 1902, there had been an Anglo-Palestine Bank, established by the Zionist Movement (today Bank Leumi). Nor did they know that Jews had established a Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra in 1936 (today, the Israeli Philharmonic), and an English-language newspaper called the The Palestine Postin 1932 (today, The Jerusalem Post) along with numerous other Jewish Palestinian institutions. Consequently, the ICJ incorrectly cites the unfulfilled Mandate for Palestine and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine as justification for the Benchs intervention in the case. The ICJ argues that as the judicial arm of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in this case because of its responsibility as a UN institution for bringing Palestinian self-determination to fruition! In paragraph 49 of the opinion, the Bench declares:
To the average reader without historical knowledge of this conflict, the term Mandate for Palestine sounds like an Arab trusteeship, but this interpretation changes neither history nor legal facts about Israel. Had the ICJ examined the minutes of the report of the 1947 United Nations Special Committee on Palestine,23 among the myriad of documents it did examine, the learned judges would have known that the Arabs categorically rejected the Mandate for Palestine. In the July 22, 1947 testimony of the President of the Council of Lebanon, Hamid Frangie, the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaking on behalf of all the Arab countries, declared unequivocally:
Frangie warned of more bloodshed:
This is not the only document that would have instructed the judges that the Mandate for Palestine was not for Arab Palestinians. Article 2026 of the PLO Charter, adopted by the Palestine National Council in July 1968 and never legally revised,27 and proudly posted on the Palestinian delegations UN website, states:
The PLO Charter adds that Jews do not meet the criteria of a nationality and therefore do not deserve statehood at all, clarifying this statement in Article 21 of the Palestinian Charter, that Palestinians,
It is difficult to ignore yet another instance of historical fantasy, where the ICJ also quotes extensively from Article 13 of the Mandate for Palestine with respect to Jerusalems Holy Places and access to them as one of the foundations for Palestinian rights allegedly violated by the security barrier. The ICJ states in paragraph 129 of the Opinion:
In fact, the 187-word quote is longer than the ICJs entire treatment of nearly three decades of British Mandate, which is summed up in one sentence, and is part of the ICJ rewriting of history:
The Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, as well as the other 28 articles of this legal document, including eight articles which specifically refer to the Jewish nature of the Mandate and discuss where Jews are legally permitted to settle and where they are not, appear nowhere in the Courts document.31 Origin of the Mandate for Palestine the ICJ overlooked.The Mandate for Palestine was conferred on April 24 1920, at the San Remo Conference, and the terms of the Mandate were further delineated on August 10 1920, in the Treaty of Sevres. The Treaty of Sevres, known also as the Peace Treaty, was settled following World War I at Sevres (France), between the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), and the Principal Allied Powers. Turkey relinquished its sovereignty over Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine, which became British mandates, and Syria (Lebanon included), which became a French mandate. The Treaty of Sevres was not ratified by all Turks, and a new treaty was renegotiated and signed on July 24 1923. It became known as the Treaty of Lausanne. The Treaty of Sevres in Section VII, Articles 94 and 95, states clearly in each case who are the inhabitants referred to in paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.32 Article 94 distinctly indicates that Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applies to the Arab inhabitants living within the areas covered by the Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia. The Article reads:
Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres, however, makes it clear that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was not to be applied to the Arab inhabitants living within the area to be delineated by the Mandate for Palestine, but only to the Jews. The Article reads:
Historically, therefore, Palestine was an anomaly within the Mandate system, in a class of its own initially referred to by the British Government as a special regime. Articles 94 and 95 of the Treaty of Sevres, which the ICJ never discussed, completely undermines the ICJs argument that the Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate. This erroneous claim renders the Courts subsequent assertions baseless. The ICJ attempts to overcome historical facts.In paragraph 162 of the Advisory Opinion, the Court states:
The Court attempts to overcome historical legal facts by making the reader believe that adoption of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly in 1947 has present-day legal standing.33 The Court also seems to be confused when it states in paragraph 162 of the opinion that the Mandate for Palestine was terminated with no substantiation [E.H., Unless the Court has confused the termination of the British Mandate over the territory of Palestine with the Mandate for Palestine document] as to how this could take place, since the Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law and are considered to be sacred trusts. A trust as in Article 80 of the UN Charter does not end because the trustee fades away. The Mandate for Palestine, an international accord that was never amended, survived the British withdrawal in 1948 and is a binding legal instrument, valid to this day (See Chapter 9: Territories Legality of Jewish Settlement). The Court affirmation of the present validity of the Mandate for Palestine is evident in paragraph 49 of the Opinion:
Addressing the Arab claim that Palestine was part of the territories promised to the Arabs in 1915 by Sir Henry McMahon, the British Government stated:
|
They are all the same thing. DNA tells the tale. The people in Siciliy are mostly from Europe, not the ME. To a degree not often appreciated they came from Scandinavia.
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.