Newt Gingrich declared in an interview that Palestinians are an “invented” people, though his campaign afterward claimed the candidate still supports the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The front-running Republican presidential candidate made the comments in an interview with The Jewish Channel. The interview marks some of the toughest language to date any candidate has used to describe the Middle East peace process. It also comes after Gingrich pledged at a forum earlier in the week that if elected, he would name John Bolton — a hawkish, pro-Israel former U.N. ambassador who served in the George W. Bush administration — as his secretary of state.
In the interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich likened himself to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he praised for his “tough-minded realism” about Israel’s security.
He said the Jewish people have the right to a state, but stopped short of declaring the same for the Palestinians.
“Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community,” Gingrich said. “And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940’s, and I think it’s tragic.”
Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said afterward that the candidate was merely referring to the “decades-long history that has surrounded this issue,” and has long supported the concept of Palestinian statehood.
“Gingrich supports a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which will necessarily include agreement between Israel and the Palestinians over the borders of a Palestinian state,” Hammond said in a statement. “However, to understand what is being proposed and negotiated you have to understand decades of complex history — which is exactly what Gingrich was referencing during the recent interview with Jewish TV. ”
During the interview, Gingrich also said it’s “delusional to call it a peace process,” claiming that the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority and Hamas alike “represent an enormous desire to destroy Israel.”
The Palestinian Authority generally is viewed in the West as a far more moderate influence in the region than Hamas. While the U.S. considers Hamas a terror group, it has tried to bring Palestinian Authority officials to the table with Israel.
Obama administration officials, notably Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, recently have put added pressure on the Israelis to help restart peace talks. President Obama, like his Republican predecessor, has pushed for a two-state solution — though the Obama administration has fought efforts at the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state absent an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians themselves.
Gingrich’s comments come as the Republican presidential candidates compete to exhibit their pro-Israel credentials. While Gingrich’s campaign later affirmed support for a Palestinian state, his comments on the Palestinian people drew fierce condemnation from abroad.
The Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, demanded Gingrich “review history.”
“From the beginning, our people have been determined to stay on their land,” Fayyad said in comments carried by the Palestinian news agency Wafa. “This, certainly, is denying historical truths.”
Palestinians never had their own state — they were ruled by the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, like most of the Arab world. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the aftermath of World War I, the British, then a global colonial power, took control of the area, then known as British Mandate Palestine.
During that time, Jews, Muslims and Christians living on the land were identified as “Palestinian.”
But modern-day Palestinians bristle at the implication that they were generic Arabs. Palestinians are culturally Arabs — they speak Arabic and their culture is broadly shared by other Arabs who live in the eastern Mediterranean. But they, for the most part, identify themselves as Palestinians, just as the Lebanese, Jordanians and Syrians also identify themselves with a specific national identity.
Vote for Paul, a vote for Obama.
Newt is doing well in the polls against Romney, but not against Obama. If Gingrich is nominated, he is behind in the polls in Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, FLORIDA (by 12 points, at last count) and even South Carolina! That is a LOT of ground for him to cover.
Whoever gets nominated or wins, I think the Middle East will be at war long beforehand. It seems to be down to just a matter of where it will start. Obama plainly does NOT want to help Israel, but he may be forced to fight Israel’s enemies. Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Lebanon will certainly attack the US forces in the ME if they are attacked, and Iran has even threatened to attack US bases in Turkey. Iraq is trying to straddle the fence, but clearly sympathizes with the Iranians. A big question mark, it seems, is how deeply the Russians and Chinese are already involved. The Chinese are pulling their oil workers out of Syria, and lots of people are trying to get themselves and their money out of Iran.
Gingrich? Obama? Obama wants to avoid a war during the election year, even if it means the doom of Israel. He doesn’t control events, though; Hashem does.
That said, I’m voting for Ron Paul — IF he’s still on the ballot by the time the primary rolls around.
Salomon posts on this site from time-to-time.
Who’s the Toronto publisher of the Richard Bass text?
(Or, rather — can you say, at this stage?)
Newt has taken way my vote which was intended for mitt.
What a refreshing, heartening experience, to hear Speaker Gingrich tell the truth about the “Palestinians”! I never thought I’d hear the truth from any American politician. I suggest that Salam Fayyed ask Gingrich for the names of some books he can read (or I’ll be glad to supply them to him). Three cheers for Newt!
Ted has it about right!!!!
Here’s a VERY good reading for those who want JUST FACTS. no cheap propaganda.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/7/palestinians.pdf
Ira
Dweller,
The Jewish Peoples Rights to the Land of Israel 9.99 on amazon.com. Author Solomon BenZimrah. Based on Jacques Gauthier’s work, also Howard Grief, Martin Gilbert, and research of original sources. Can be read in 1/2 a day.
Also being developed in Toronto is a textbook and an entire ciriculum by anoher author, Richard Bass. Ready very soon.
Why the mess? Azmi Bichara, an Arab, already said it…
Gingrich is not the first one, the Israeli-Arab, antisionist, former member of the parliament (Knesset) said it all: “there is no a palestinian nation”, only Al Umah Al-Arabiya (Arab nation).. See it and hear it by yourselves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vaOUBAt9EM
Remember, a politician is one who shakes your hand before an election and your confidence after.
Have you not read of the backtrack?
That was quick.
“George” has a point: there are some Arabs who can trace their ancestry living in Israel, Judea or Samaria for centuries. Equally there are Jews who can do likewise. Remember that for the last 200 years the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem have been Jewish. That is not the real point. It is that there never was a “Palestinian people” until propagandists invented it in the 1960s.
Nice to see Newt speaking the truth on this important issue. Note how the FOX News writer falls into the trap: Even though the “Palestinians-formerly-known-as-Arabs” have no distinctive cultural or linguistic history, they “bristle at the implication that they were generic Arabs.” Ah, it’s all about feelings nowadays, isn’t it? So if the good citizens of, say, East Cleveland decide next week that they’re no longer Americans, or Ohioans, or Clevelanders, but rather “East Clevelanders,” and they start “bristling” at any other terminology, why, then it’s game over, isn’t it?
Ted please release my last comment.
It’s about time a major political figure finally broke this taboo about the fakestinians and their fraudulent claim to statehood. On what basis does the world have to steal land from the Jewish state to create a 22 Arab state? I hate it that Newt’s spokesman tried to soften up his remarks. What we need is more blunt truths being stated, not politically correct lies being spoken to placate muslim sensitivities. One needs to simply ask why only since 1967 has there been a movement to create a “palestinian” state? Why was there no such effort when Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem? How come these Arabs have only referred to themselves as “palestinians” since 1967?
If this thesis is Jacques Gauthier’s dissertation, then YES, Thinker, I’d most certainly be interested.
But as I recall, it’s massive. How will you keep the price within bounds?
Kudos to Gingrich for speaking the truth! This Arab Palestinian nonsense was an idea from Paris and Madison Ave. admen after the 56 war to have an underdog to replace the Jewish underdog state. That Yasser Arafat was born in Egypt and was head of the palestinians while at the same time being indigenous to Israel is something about of the silly world of Chelm rather than serious policy issue. We’ve all been had
And Rabbi Meir Kahane, zt”l makes an excellent case for the Arabs to be kicked out in his book, “They Must Go.” No Choice but Transfer
That’s exactly what Newt did.
It can change everything. In some circles Jordan is the Arab part of the of the Mandate for Palestine based on the British Mandate, and the San Remo Accords of 1922. The Mandate For Paletine was set aside for a national home for he Jewish People, while th Mandate for Syria and the mandate for Mesopotamia (Iraq) went to the Arabs. A historian like Gingrich will with the right information re-educate the gullable American populace, will have the support of the Christians and Jews. Once people realize that the “Palestinians” are Arabs, and the Arabs already have 77 percent of the Mandate for Palestine which was set aside for the Jews (not including Judea and Samaria). It could reframe the entire arguement and right a historical wrong. In Toronto we are publishing a book has been published in English nd Hebrew as well as a textbook on this history, a Ph.D thesis on he legal rights of the Jewish people to all of the land from jordan river to Mediterrnean sea. If anyone is interested in more information please comment.
Yes, I remembered that story from about 18 months ago — but I don’t think the Jordanian Nationality Code of 1954, that I cited above, was actually changed. (Was it?) So, the “stripping of citizenship” is apparently an administrative matter, not a legislative one — thus subject to administrative reinstatement and not part of the country’s “constitutional” (or otherwise substantive) being.
The Land Registration records, aka TABU, in the hands of the Arabs interlopers are those in the hands of Turkey dating back only to the Ottoman control of Eretz Israel. Turkey and later the British gave, “sold” and partitioned Land which is the recognized property of the Jewish people.
Nowhere there are records of a palestinean past government. Lets not confuse philistin, a nomadic merchant tribe from Greece, with the “palestineas”, an invented nationality by the Romans and adopted by the British.
The Jewish people possess records including predecesors burial monuments that date back to over three thousand years ago.
The Arabs willing to be faithfull residents of the Jewish State of Israel, would enjoy as they do now equal rignth before the law and equal opportunities. Enemies shall not be tolerated.
JEWISH STATE:
Mast Islamic States declare to be Islamic Law states. Others such as Argentina include in the Constitution, I beleive Article 2, being a Catholic country.
Israel, residing in Eretz Israel is a Jewish State.
Jordan strips Palestinians’ citizenship
“Centuries”? — Plural?
Just barely.
“Most of the ancestors of the present-day ‘Palestinians’ arrived in the region along with or after the expedition of the Ottoman governor of Egypt, Muhammad Ali, into Syria in the early 1830?s. Rebellions & famines in Syria brought waves of Arabs into Palestine in the 19th & 20th centuries. And of course British & Zionist development brought even more Arab immigrants.”
Ethnic Cleansing has always been an Arab trip.
Never a Jewish one.
Especially since they already HAVE a state.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state — and has been a Palestinian Arab state for as long as it has been a state (albeit, like virtually all Arab states, a racist one); viz., since 1946 — two years longer than Israel has been a Jewish state.
Consider:
• Jordan contains nearly 80 percent of the territory of Mandate Palestine — 78 percent, to be precise.
• Jordan’s army, her overall citizenry and her managerial-entrepreneurial class — as well as her executive elites — are all 70 percent (or more) comprised of “Palestinians.”
• Over twice as many Palestine Arabs reside on the spacious & fertile East Bank plateaus of the River Jordan as live in the Israeli heartland’s unincorporated, West Bank provinces.
• Jordanian nationality code explicitly entitles any Palestinian to Jordanian citizenship — unless that Palestinian is a Jewish Palestinian (that part also is explicit). [Art. 3 (2), Law No. 6 of 1954, Jordanian Nationality Law, Official Gazette No. 1171, 16 Feb 54, p. 105]
• It constitutes a capital crime (a hanging offense, boys & girls) for any Jordanian citizen to sell land in Jordan to a Jew — to any Jew.
So the REAL question here, George, goes like this:
Why do the self-styled “Palestinians” need TWO states in Mandate Palestine (and both of them “ethnically cleansed” of Jews)?
If one independent sovereignty is enough for the Jews
— why isn’t one enough for the ‘Palestinians’?
The issue has never been whether they have a right to liver here, but whether they have a right to national liberation i.e. a state. And even if one concedes they have a right to a state, why must it be with ’67 lines as borders or with Jerusalem as its capital.
Gingrich is factually accurate. But how does it change anything? There weren’t “Palestinians” in Palestine before 1948 but there were people in Palestine that weren’t Jewish (some are Jewish converts to Islam and Christianity) that have been there for centuries. Does the fact that there is not a Palestinian nationality/language, etc. change the fact that these poeple have a right to live there?
Yeah, like “Druze” or “Shia” or “Alawite” or “Christian” or “Arabic” or “Maronite”, etc. Nation-states are a European idea. The Middle East has always had tribes, emirates, kingdoms and empires.