The Gingrich Who Stole Palestine

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (3 votes cast)

Gingrich Stole
“We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs…..” Newt Gingrich on The Jewish Channel (Cable TV), December 12, 2011

“The Palestinian people does not exist,…only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of the Palestinian people.” Zahir Muhsein, Member of the PLO Executive Committee, 1977

The former House Speaker apparently agrees with Mr. Muhsein that Arabs living in the former Palestine Mandate territory do not constitute a separate people, but are merely a segment of the Arab people in one geographical area. He also agrees that the term “Palestinians” was invented to create an Arab state in place of the Jewish State of Israel.

The basic historical facts are not in dispute. The first time “Palestini” occurs in world literature is in the work of the Greek historian Herodotus, who wrote in the 5th century BCE. The land which is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Gaza was named “Syria Palestina” by Roman Emperor Hadrian about 165 CE after he crushed the Bar Kochba Revolt in Judaea. The Arab newspaper Filasteen referred to its readers as “Palestinians” around 1911, and the first Syrian-Palestinian Congress met in 1921. Residents of the Palestine Mandate (both Jewish and Arab) were referred to as Palestinians in Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate. (Wikipedia)

The British severed the eastern part of Palestine in 1922 to form the Kingdom of Transjordan, now Jordan. In November 1947, the UN voted to partition western Palestine into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state. During the ensuing war the West Bank of the Jordan River was seized by Jordan, and Gaza by Egypt, so Palestine disappeared from the maps of the world altogether. But Arabs continued to refer to all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean as Palestine, and several terrorist organizations were formed to “liberate Palestine” from the Zionists (Jews). In the course of the 1967 Six Day War Israel conquered both Gaza and the West Bank, bringing nearly 4 million Arabs under Israeli rule. Israel offered to withdraw from these territories in exchange for peace and recognition, but until 1977 no Arab nation agreed. The peace treaty with Egypt made that year left the Palestine question open to subsequent negotiation.

The Arab League had 19 years (1948 to 1967) to establish a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, but did not do so. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), formed by Yassir Arafat in 1964, explicitly denied any designs on the lands held by Egypt and Jordan; the goal was to replace Israel with an Arab state. In 1993 Arafat and PLO agreed to recognize Israel and accept Gaza and the West Bank as the “new Palestine,” but he made it clear to his fellow Arab leaders (but not to Israel or the US) that this was merely a first step toward the ultimate goal of one Arab state in the entire land. Israel assisted in setting up the Palestine Authority (PA) in Gaza and the West Bank, and offered in 2000 to establish a State of Palestine there. Arafat rejected this offer, and his successor Mahmoud Abbas rejected a similar offer in 2008. Meanwhile Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza, which was quickly taken over by the fanatical Islamist Hamas regime, which rejects any peace with Israel.

By building a fence around Gaza and the West Bank, Israel has essentially severed both lands from “Israel proper,” even though several hundred thousand Jews live in the West Bank among over two million Arabs, who call themselves “Palestinians” (even if Gingrich won’t). The US Government, under both Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama, have sought to establish an Arab state in the two territories, much as the UN proposed back in 1947. Israel also supports the concept, but with several security caveats. Yet Israel and the PA are very far apart on issues such the future of Jerusalem, the West Bank settlements and possible rights of Palestinian Arabs to settle in Israel.

I contend that the PA dares not accept any deal to which Israel could possibly agree, so no State of Palestine will be established in the foreseeable future. Obama foolishly promised the Palestinians a state of their own in 2009, and now he cannot deliver one. Meanwhile, his carping crticism of Israel over expanding the settlements has alienated Jewish voters, who supported him overwhelmingly in 2008.

Although Newt Gingrich has repudiated the position of Republican President George W Bush, his rejection of Palestinian nationhood is politcally smart. This stance will appeal to both Jews and evangelical Christians, and the latter are important in Republican primaries and caucuses, especially in the early states of Iowa and South Carolina. If Gingrich is nominated, he will pull crucial Jewish votes away from Obama in New York and Florida.

In the unlikely event that Newt Gingrich becomes President,. at some point he will have to explain to the Palestinians and their allies in the Arab world why he does not believe they exist.

Gerald S Glazer
_____________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (3 votes cast)

Gingrich: The Ultimate Partisan

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Newt Gingrich image
“Everybody on this stage would make a better Commander-in-Chief than Barack Obama!” Newt Gingrich at Republican candidate forum, Nov. 12, 2011

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, apparently Mr. November in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, has been faulted for accepting about $1.6 million in consulting fees from the failed government-backed mortgage investor Freddie Mac. (1) But it is common for big time politicians to cash in on their savvy and connections after leaving public office, so that is not scandalous. (I would have taken the money myself, had it been offered, and I am pure as the driven snow.) Apparently, Newt has no problem with profligate spending by quasi-public entities such as Freddie Mac, as long as the money is spent on him.

As a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, he would be expected to guarantee his support for the 2012 GOP ticket. (2) But the statement quoted above goes way beyond that: he declared that every other Republican candidate (including those who have no chance of winning the nomination) is preferable to President Barack Obama, which implies that partisanship trumps all other considerations in evaluating candidates.

All the Republican candidates are for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. But aside from that Republican orthodoxy, some differ from each other as much as they differ from President Obama. For example, Jon Hunstman represented Obama’s China policies in Beijing with no problem for nearly three years, while Mitt Romney advocates punishing China for its predatory currency and trade practices. Since Gingrich considers both preferable to Obama, how to deal with China is no big deal to him.

Newt Gingrich considers himself a friend of Israel, and supported aid to Israel while in Congress, yet would rather have Rep. Ron Paul in charge of US Middle East policy than Barack Obama. Obama has been justly criticized for his opposition to Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, but the President has supported over $3 billion in aid to the Jewish state every year of his presidency and gave Israel the $200 million “Iron Dome” missile defense system. In sharp contrast, Rep. Paul has consistently voted against all foreign aid (of which Israel is the largest recipient) and cast one of only 5 votes in the entire House of Representatives (3) against supporting Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Paul has long been rightly labeled one of the most anti-Israel members of the House, which Gingrich certainly knows, yet he would still prefer him over Obama! Apparently Gingrich’s love for Israel is overwhelmed by his love for the Republican Party.

Herman Cain’s 9% sales tax? No problem! Rick Perry’s desire to abolish the Department of Energy (which includes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the watchdog over possible radioactive contamination) plus other agencies to named later? No problem! Michelle Bachmann’s hope to eliminate all federal taxes, so the government would have to close down permanently (not just a few days)? No problem! They are all Republicans, so they would all be better than Obama!

Newt Gingrich has a checkered past, including two (out of three, so far) failed marriages, shutting down the US government in 1995, impeachment of President Clinton, a $300,000 fine for an ethics violation while Speaker and his resignation from Congress (4). He has wisely refrained from lambasting his fellow Republican presidential candidates, which will help him pick up the support of those who fall by the wayside. But if he is nominated, his obsessive partisanship and cantankerous personality will probably sink the GOP ticket.

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————————-

(1) “Gingrich defends Freddie Mac pay” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 17, 2011, page 7A. “Freddie Mac” is a popular nickname for FHLMC, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, which was taken over by the US Government in 2008 to prevent collapse.

(2) After Eugene McCarthy refused to promise to support the 1968 Democratic presidential ticket, he never won another election.

(3)The others were Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Nick Rahall and our own Gwen Moore.

(4) Wikipedia biography.

———————————————————————–

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VioSoftware.com

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Romney / Gingrich Ticket?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.5/7 (2 votes cast)

Romney Ginrich Image
A Romney/Gingrich republican presidential ticket could work well to solve the economic problems destroying our country.

As president, Romney would command the role of front man, presenting the ideals of the party to the American public, including repeal of ObamaCare, reduction of unnecessary regulation by government agencies, gradual elimination of the IRS, protection of our borders and anything else that is reasonable to get Americans back to work—without spending trillions of dollars in the process.

Behind Romney would be Gingrich. As vice-president, Gingrich has the political experience in congress to work both sides of the aisle in the background to obtain consensus for passage of proposed legislation.

Obama learned a hard lesson in his failed presidency, demonstrating to the country his inability to join congress in implementing policies that move our country out of recession.

Vice-president Biden has demonstrated the ability to do nothing but cause controversy. Typical for a phony busted for plagiarizing many years ago.

Sure, Obama got things done say liberals. Anyone could ram healthcare legislation down the throats of Americas when you have a congressional majority. And Obama’s method includes getting a bill passed, even when few representatives took the time to actually read the bill.

Nice governing!

Other than that, Obama does a great job charging up the public’s credit card, but has no clue as to how to substantially curtail spending in order to pay back the debt.

A Romney/Gingrich ticket combines Romney’s business experience of successfully running a company in the black, along with Gingrich’s congressional technocrat expertise.

As a nation, we don’t have time to bicker over how many wives Gingrich has had, or Romney’s religious affiliation. The people who promote those issues should go back to watching The Kardashians.

We need solutions that work. A Romney/Gingrich ticket is gold.

 
VioSoftware.com

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.5/7 (2 votes cast)