(AGI) Washington - The Republican White House candidate Newt Gingrich has accused Obama of taking sides with the Palestinians. The former Speaker and election front-runner also said that the Palestinians are 'an invented people.' Gingrich said that were he to be impartial between a civil law-abiding society and a group of terrorists shooting missiles every day, this would not in fact constitute being impartial but would mean favouring the terrorists. Mr Gingrich does not differentiate between the ANP and Hamas. Interviewed on Israeli TV, Gringrich said 'I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state,' while 'we have invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. [That's why] they had a chance to go many places.'Interestingly enough, the PLO terrorist Zahir Muhsein admitted this in 1977:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.Gingrich's bold statement has not gone over well with Fatah and Hamas. From AP/USA Today (also via Jihad Watch):
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
JERUSALEM (AP) – A slew of Palestinian officials reacted with dismay Saturday to Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's statement that the Palestinians are an "invented" people.No, they are reality, and Gingrich, simply put, has found footing in reality by acknowledging facts. For this, Gingrich deserves a lot of applause.
The Jewish Channel, a U.S. cable TV network, released excerpts of the interview on Friday in which the former House speaker said Palestinians were not a people because they never had a state and because they were part of the Ottoman Empire before the British mandate and Israel's creation.
"Remember, there was no Palestine as a state — (it was) part of the Ottoman Empire. I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places," Gingrich said, according to a video excerpt posted online.
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." [...]
Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi said Gingrich had "lost touch with reality." She said his statements were "a cheap way to win (the) pro-Israel vote."
A spokesman for the militant Hamas rulers of the Palestinian Gaza Strip called Gingrich's statements "shameful and disgraceful."
"These statements … show genuine hostility toward Palestinians," said spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.
Update: here's a longer transcript of Gingrich's interview on the Wash. Post.
7 comments:
Undoubtedly terrorist Zahir Muhsein's fingernails were in extreme pain when he recited his declaration that there was never any Palestine or Palestinian people.
By being honest on this very contentious issue, Newt has differentiated himself from the field and the current President. Imagine for a moment what Middle East politics would look like if the Muslims and Palestinians had to confront and deal with a President who acknowledged and advanced the region's historical truths. The truths as opposed to the deceptive Islamist narrative that has been accepted and advanced by even our own State Department for decades.
I prefer Newt's approach--honesty in negotiations and discussions rather than accommodating a false narrative.
-"review history."
-"This, certainly, is denying
historical truths."
-"a cheap way to win (the) pro-Israel vote."
-"lost touch with reality."
-"shameful and disgraceful."
-"These statements … show genuine hostility toward Palestinians,"
I guess when words like "false" "untrue" "wrong" and "incorrect" are a bit too factually unwieldly for you, it's time to improvise.
He has the lead on brutal non pc truth telling.
There is NO history which back anything other than before the British Mandate and ONLY BECUASE of that artificial border was there even a POLITICAL grouping called palestinians, let alone a people.
In fact as the Mandate itself made clear it was the influx of jews and the society they built which drew in arabs from the surrounding lands which had far less opportunity, and LONGEVITY
Newt needs only to refer to historic fact until the Pals resort to lunatic fiction as history (such as their reason for disallowing any digs on temple mount....'there's nothing down there')
In the debate last night, all the REP contenders had to admit Newt was correct about historic fact yet all of the others will hesitate to refer to such truths as president. Rather, Romney, Santorum and Paul will insist on 'diplomatic' nonsense, repeating the mistakes of decades past. I wish Newt would have pointed out that such hesitation is one of the primary reasons this remains such a contentious and 'sensitive' issue today.
And a famous Palestinian king was....?
And an archeological Palestinian palace was...?
And the capital of the Palestinian nation was...?
"And an archeological Palestinian palace was...?"
Sodom
"And the capital of the Palestinian nation was...?"
Gomorrah
;)
Post a Comment