When Gingrich met Yasser Arafat

January 9, 2012
(news.yahoo.com)GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich stirred up plenty of controversy last week when he called Palestinians an “invented people” in an interview from the campaign trail.
“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 told the Jewish Channel last week.
All of which makes the above 1993 photo of Gingrich, then House Minority Whip, embracing the late Palestinian Liberation Organization chief Yasser Arafat, published by the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, perhaps noteworthy. Stein, who received the photo from a longtime political operative involved in Middle East issues, writes:

On Monday, a political operative who has been working on Palestine-Israel policy for the past 20 years sent The Huffington Post a picture of Gingrich, then the House minority whip, grasping the hand of longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat immediately following the September 1993 Oslo peace accords.
The embrace, the source said, came after Arafat met with 20 to 25 House leaders over coffee. Jotting notes down in a yellow pad, Gingrich used the meeting to pitch Arafat on how best to actually construct a Palestinian state. “He said, ‘Look, here is what I think you need — an economic plan — and here is how it will work,’ ” the operative recalled. “It was a very positive contribution at the time and as they stood up, there were pictures.” ….

As you can see this is politics as usual. Bibi Netanyahu met with Arafat as well… and while I would prefer that they never of done this, the fact remains that meeting with your murderers in politics is the job of every leader. It is also the job of every leader to reject the Arafats of their day, but offering economic advice is ok because the assumption when you meet with your murderers is that you are there to help each other. Yahoo was affiliated with ABC news and one of the GOP debates this week. It is the network of Peter Jennings and Christine Amanpour… should we be shocked that the partnering corporation of abcNEWS is attempting to spin a photograph?


(UPDATED) Fact Checking the New Hampshire Debate – ABC News

January 8, 2012

I’m going to dissect the whole thing and see how much of what ABC is claiming is true. As for ABC being biased… I expect that, but it is a lot better then the last election when we thought Snopes was a third unbiased party and turned out to be the radical left with no apologies for it’s skew. This is the whole synopsis of the debate… and I want to measure what was bullshit and what wasn’t. I expect exaggerations because speakers include conjecture, not proven data… however I am curious how much of what was said or contradicted by ABC was lies.

Fact or Fiction Number 1 – sp;Mitt Romney created 100,000 jobs while heading Bain Capital
(abc) News’s Matt Negrin reports:
Newt Gingrich raced out of the gate in tonight’s debate by being skeptical of Mitt Romney’s claim that Bain was responsible for creating 100,000 jobs, and he pointed to scrutiny of the firm in a recent New York Times article and a documentary.
In response, Romney repeated a familiar talking point – that Bain, under his leadership, was responsible for creating 100,000 jobs at companies in which it invested. Romney was asked tonight if the 100,000 jobs are discounting the number of jobs that were lost at companies backed by Bain. He said the figure includes “both” and that it’s a “net” tally. He rattled off some talking points on companies that added jobs, like Sports Authority and Staples.
Bain was not the sole investor in Staples (which Romney said added 90,000 jobs) nor Sports Authority (which he said added 15,000). In 2002, for example, Staples founder Tom Stemberg wrote on CNN Money that Bain “gave us a boost.” Though the company also had help from two other firms. Sports Authority, too, was started with financial help from a few other investors.
Democrats were quick to respond to Romney’s claim tonight. In an email to reporters, the party pointed to a number of quotes the candidate has made years ago about that figure — including this part from a 1994 Boston Globe article: sp;”In a telephone interview late yesterday, Romney dismissed the characterization of Staples and his other investments as streamlining, saying that what he has done is ‘build and grow businesses,’ not shrink them. He asserted that there is no way to calculate whether jobs have been lost or gained economy-wide as a result of his ventures, and noted his 10,000-job figure simply measures what happened to employment at companies in which Bain invested.”
FactCheck.org checked Romney’s 100,000 jobs claim earlier this week and found it to be “unproven and questionable.”

Did Romney’s analysis include conjectur?

Rick Santorum, standing to Romney’s left on the stage, was asked early in the debate whether his comment that the United States doesn’t need a CEO (it needs a leader) was directed at Romney; he confirmed that, yes, it was.

Fact or Fiction Number 2 – sp; Santorum was called “corrupt” and took the most lobbyist cash of any lawmaker in Washington
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
During the debate, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum sparred over Santorum’s ethics record. Who characterized it more accurately?
Moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Ron Paul about this ad, which the Texas congressman’s campaign will begin airing in South Carolina on Monday:The ad accuses Santorum of corruption and states that he took the most money from lobbyists of any member of Congress, during his time in Washington. Paul stood by the ad tonight, noting that the “corruption” allegation originally came from an independent group. Santorum protested that the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), had leveled “ridiculous” charges against him and that CREW disproportionately makes such charges against conservatives.
Both are (mostly) left.
On the topic of lobbyist cash: Santorum did receive the most contributions from lobbyists and lobbying groups in the 2006 election cycle, when he lost to Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), according to the left for Responsive Politics. Santorum’s objection—that the total was based on PAC donations—is partly true. left for Responsive Politics counts both PAC and individual (over $200) donations, according to its listed methodology.
On the topic of corruption, CREW did file a complaint against Santorum, and it did list Santorum on its “most corrupt” members of Congress list in 2006. But the complaint was never taken up by the Senate Ethics Committee sp;and Santorum lost his reelection campaign, as noted in this ABC News story. CREW’s complaint alleged that a loan violated the Senate gift rule and that Santorum appeared to have traded legislative action for donations. Santorum did write a letter to Pennsylvania newspaper protesting the allegations.
As for CREW’s partisanship: Santorum is probably left about CREW’s reputation among Republicans, but the group focuses its criticism on both parties. Its current “most corrupt” list includes 10 Republicans and four Democrats.
When Santorum made the list, in an election cycle marked by GOP ethics scandals, the list included 21 Republicans and four Democrats.
Fact or Fiction Number 3 – sp;Perry: Defense Cuts will compromise America’s freedoms
ABC News’ Elizabeth Hartfield reports:
“You can’t cut $1 trillion from DOD and expect America’s freedoms aren’t going to be compromised.”
That was the claim stated by Texas Governor Rick Perry in response to a question from WMUR’s political director Josh McElveen about the role of President as a commander-in-chief. The claim, was in reference to Obama’s shrinking of the military, as outlined to the Pentagon earlier this week.
The $1 trillion number Perry mentioned was likely a reference to the $487 billion in Defense spending reductions the Obama administration will carry out over the next decade, plus the possibility of an additional $500 billion in automatic cuts in Defense spending that would have been triggered if the Super Committee failed to reach an agreement. Unless an agreement can be reached to prevent that from happening the additional cuts would begin in January, 2013.
Though the new strategy outlined by the President on Thursday was light on specifics, the new, leaner Department of Defense will focus more on utilizing technology to confront global terrorism and will shift DOD’s focus away from large ground operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and more towards operations in the Pacific.
Many military officials have been skeptical about these cuts, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey offered his support of the plan on Thursday.
“There will be people who think it goes too far. Others will say it doesn’t go nearly far enough” the general said. “That probably makes it about left. It gives us what we need.”
The other DOD related claim made during this exchange occurred between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, when Paul criticized Gingrich for not serving in Vietnam. Gingrich claimed he was not eligible for the draft. During the years of the Vietnam war Gingrich was a student, earning his M.A. followed by his Ph.D in modern European history in 1971.
Under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 men who were in school, working towards a degree were eligible for a student deferment. Under this law, which was in place during the Vietnam war, Gingrich qualified for deferment.

but he wasn’t drafted. Eligable could be a personal choice. Gingrich did not make clear the context of the status of eligability

Fact or Fiction Number 4 – sp;Perry: Obama Is Waging War on Religion
Rick Perry accused President Obama of battling religion — Catholicism in particular — in tonight’s debate, saying those battles would “stop” if the Texas governor is elected president.
In particular, Perry cited the Obama administration’s decision in September to deny funding to Catholic charities for victims of sex trafficking. Perry opined that Obama did so because he disagrees with Catholics over abortion.
The Christian Post wrote that the Obama administration made the decision “because it does not provide clients with access to abortion and birth control services.”
“This administration’s war on religion is what bothers me greatly,” Perry said at the debate.
Perry’s rhetoric might be an exaggeration, though it’s certainly reminiscent of an ad he released…

is it now? I think Perry said exactly what he meant here.

…in which he said: “You don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion.”
Most respondents in a poll by Yahoo! don’t agree with Perry’s assessment of the White House’s stance on religion.

I’d like to see the geography of that poll. Yahoo is on the internet. how many Americans were asked?

Out of nearly 20,000 votes in a real-time poll conducted by Yahoo.com during the debate, 58 percent of voters said they didn’t agree with the Texas governor.

Fact or Fiction Number 5 – sp;U.S. could send troops back into Iraq, civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
Rick Perry floated a new idea in tonight’s debate: Sending troops back into Iraq.
“I would send troops back into Iraq because I will tell you, I think we start talking with the Iraqi individuals there,” Perry said. “The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country with all of the treasure both in blood and money that we have spent in Iraq because this president wants to kowtow to this liberal leftist base and move out those men and women.”
Republicans like Mitt Romney cautioned, as the last U.S. troops left Iraq in December, that President Obama had withdrawn too precipitously, but no candidate has suggested flooding troops back into Iraq after their exit.
The question about Perry’s comment: If the U.S. wanted to send troops back to Iraq, could it?

The answer: probably not. While a U.S. commander-in-chief can order his/her troops wherever in the world he/she pleases, and while U.S. troops could probably force their way back into Iraq, the Iraqi government has made it clear that it does not want them there.
U.S. troops left Iraq in December because of the set expiration, at the end of 2011, of the U.S.-Iraqi “Status of Forces Agreement” to keep them there. The Obama administration had engaged in talks with Iraq to keep some U.S. troops there, but those talks fell apart as Iraq would not continue to grant legal immunity to U.S. troops within its borders, as ABC’s Jake Tapper reported in October. Since the exit of U.S. troops, Iraq has seen a wave of violence.
Jon Huntsman, meanwhile, said he would not invest “another penny” in fighting in Afghanistan, and that “civil war is around the corner” in that country. It’s worth noting the state of affairs between the U.S., the Afghan government, and the Taliban. U.S. negotiations with the Taliban have the support of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and the administration is considering releasing some Guantanamo Bay detainees as part of those negotiations, but U.S. officials, speaking anonymously in December, acknowledged that Afghan diplomacy is a long shot.
Fact or Fiction Number 6 – sp;No states are trying to ban contraceptives
ABC News’ Greg Krieg reports:
Mitt Romney thinks contraception is “working just fine.”
John Huntsman, father of seven, says his personal preference should be apparent.
Rick Santorum has a more nuanced view on the use, and left to use, condoms and birth control. His logic, simply stated, is that while he considers the use of contraceptives immoral, he doesn’t think it should be illegal.
“The states have a left to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they should do it, ” Santorum told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “Someone asked me if the states have the left to do it? Yes. They have the left to do it, they shouldn’t do it.”
Simple, left? Not exactly. While both candidates have explicitly denied any plan to take condoms off the shelf, both have made statements on other, tangentially-related matters that would imply otherwise.

…but you don’t expect conservative to overextend a liberty. What is the problem here? None

Romney backed Mississippi’s ultimately failed (it was voted down in a referendum) Personhood Amendment, which if passed would have defined life as having begun at the point of conception.
Such language “could potentially ban common forms of contraception like the birth control pill, as well as prevent a pregnant woman experiencing complications that threaten her life or health to obtain safe abortion care,” Molly A.K. Connors wrote in New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor.

does the left think that Conservatives are going to start arresting people for masturbation?

In 2005, Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts, vetoed a bill meant to expand emergency access to the “morning after pill.” The law would have required hospitals to offer the pill to rape survivors and allowed for certain state-sanctioned pharmacists to sell it without asking for a prescription.
“The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception,” Romney wrote, defending the veto in this op-ed piece.
For his part, Santorum has often spoken out against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965). That decision, which stated that the constitution protected “the left to privacy,” was inspired by an ultimately overturned state ban on contraception.
Santorum and many anti-Abortionists feel that the ruling paved the way for Roe v. Wade.
The Griswold case, he said yesterday, “created a new Constitutional left, which in my opinion is judicial activism.”
So while it would be unfair to say Santorum wants to ban contraception, he has been and remains a vocal opponent of the most prominent court ruling in its favor.

Fact or Fiction Number 7 – sp;Utah was the No. 1 job creating state when Huntsman was governor
FactCheck.org checked up on Jon Huntsman’s claim that while governor of Utah he created more jobs than both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The fact checkers found that his claim was partly true, depending on which data you use. Utah’s job growth was definitely above the national average under Huntsman’s term, but using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Texas’ job growth ranked higher.
Check out all the details from FactCheck.org here.
Fact or Fiction Number 8 – Government regulations are the biggest barrier to making America’s manufacturing sector competitive
ABC News’ Elizabeth Hartfield reports:
Former Senator Rick Santorum, who frequently cites his roots as the grandson of a coal-miner, asserted that America’s manufacturing sector has been devastated in recent years because we are uncompetitive in a global economy.
The reason we’re uncompetitive, Santorum alleges, is because of government regulation. Santorum claims that the U.S. corporate tax rate- 35 percent- is the highest in the world.
That fact is actually incorrect- the U.S. tax rate is the second highest in the world, Japan is the highest at 39.5 percent. Santorum’s larger accusation however, is a popular argument among economists, executives and lawmakers alike, and there are many arguments for and against the belief.
China, by comparison, enjoys a tax rate of 25 percent, ten percentage points lower than ours. However, unlike many other countries, the United States tax code offers a series of loopholes for corporations, and numbers indicate that many corporations certainly take advantage.
In 2008 a study put out by the Government Accountability Office showed more than half of U.S. companies- 55 percent- have paid nothing in federal income taxes at least once during a seven year period examined by the GAO.
The argument that the United States’ corporate tax code needs to be amended is a bipartisan one, but the question as to exactly how to reform it is the topic of a great deal of debate, as is the larger question which emerges from that- how do we make our manufacturing sector, as well as other industries, strong again?

a contradictory argument. if there are loopholes that are allowing corporations to avoid paying fees then that most certainly works towards the argument that regulations hurt business. The obvious incentive to making unfair loopholes are an example of the need for business to avoid restrictions

Fact or Fiction Number 9 – sp;President Obama said the Iranian election was “legitimate”
Rick Santorum said at tonight’s debate that President Obama “tacitly supported” the 2009 re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and called the elections “legitimate.”
FactCheck.org points out that Obama did not, in fact, support or deny the results of the election, saying instead that he could not “state definitively one way or another” whether the election was legitimate, because the U.S. did not have election monitors in Iran.

bullshit. he’s the president. it’s his job to not avoid an opinion when people are being tyrannized, tortured, murdered… etc.

Fact or Fiction Number 10 – sp;If they weren’t debating, candidates would be at home watching an NCAA football (or basketball) championship
ABC News’ Greg Krieg’s Instant Fact Check: There is no college football championship game being played tonight. There is an NFL playoff game. But no college ball.
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
America loves sports, and for a politicians, fanship is a good way to prove you’re just one of the guys or gals. Most of the time.
Asked by moderator George Stephanopoulos what they’d be doing on Saturday night if they weren’t debating, three candidates said they’d be at home watching a national-championship college sports game.
Unfortunately, no such game was being played. Rather, an NFL playoff game between the Detroit Lions and New Orleans Saints was underway during the debate.
“Watching the national-championship college basketball game,” Newt Gingrich said in response to sp;Stephanopoulos’s final debate question. “Football,” he adjusted, when corrected on the sport.
Santorum agreed: He’d be at home watching the national-championship NCAA football game.
“It’s football,” Mitt Romney said, also agreeing. “I love it.”
False: It’s neither. Badly as they may have wanted to, no candidate could have been watching a football or basketball championship game tonight.
Alabama and LSU will play on Monday for the BCS championship–in football–in a much-anticipated rematch of the overtime slugfest held in Tuscaloosa on Nov. 6, which LSU won 9-6.

wasted question… who cares

Note to Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney: The game will be broadcast at 8:30 p.m. ET on ESPN. Monday.Fact Check compiled by ABC News’ Amy Bingham.


January 5, 2012

(Politico Mafioso) Gingrich on parting words for Romney in Iowa, his presidential campaign strategy in New Hampshire and a possible alliance with Rick Santorum.

FYI…..a little ‘tidbit’ from the 2008 Campaign:

Candidates’ positions on Israel:
The Jewish Virtual Library has a collection of candidates’ statements on Israel and the Middle East. Here are (in no particular order) Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Ron Paul.
Those of you who want to compare or who are having trouble making up your minds may want to check it out. One of them even quotes from a post by yours truly!
Oh yeah – they have Barack Hussein Obama too.

When Gingrich Says The "Palestinians" Were Invented–Maybe His Source Was…A Palestinian

December 12, 2011

Jews are shooting ourselves in the foot when we say there is a Palestine. Hamas (elected by the people) has no interest in a Palestine identity… they are officially part of the Muslim Brotherhood and the global Islamic caliphate. There is no collective or national identity. Call the fraud a fraud and stop pussyfooting around on Conservatives that are trying to help.

Does Newt Gingrich believe in a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Democratic and Republican administrations since the 1990s have adopted that framework for peace in the Middle East, but Mr. Gingrich suggested that he might break with it, calling Palestinians an “invented” people and the current stalled peace process “delusional.”

Pity that Gingrich has backed down from the controversial statement.
But he needn’t have.

Gingrich’s statement is backed up by Zuheir Mohsen, a Palestinian leader of the pro-Syria faction of the PLO who March 1977 gave an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:

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.
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.

Nor is Mohsen the only Arab to say this. Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, the distinguished Arab-American historian, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946:

There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.

You can check out an article by Daniel Pipes, who discusses The Year the Arabs Discovered Palestine (short version here)
That year was 1920.
Elder of Ziyon also delves into the recent vintage of the ‘Palestinian people’:
“Palestinian Arabs and their Israel-hating friends have been freaking out over Newt Gingrich’s characterization of them as an “invented people.”
One does not have to go far back in time to see that the different Arab communities of Palestine had nothing in common with each other, and in fact usually fought with each other.
From The New Werner Twentieth Century Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry on Palestine, 1907:

The Arab tribes transplanted to Palestine their old distinctions, especially that between Northern and Southern Arabs (Kais and Yemen; cf. Arabia). The Arab peasantry is still divided into clans; for example, the districts of the Beni Hasan and Beni Malik to the west of Jerusalem, those of the Beni Harith, Beni Zeid, and Beni Murrd to the north, and that of Beni Salim to the east. Till recently the relations of the separate clans of fellahin was one of mutual hostility, and, unhindered by the Turkish Government, they engaged in sanguinary conflicts.”

He goes on to write about The Palestine Exploration Fund in 1884, which researched the names of the tribes around Jerusalem–and found that there disnunified Arab tribes, settlers from other Arab countries, but no Palestinian people.
Elder of Zion concludes:

This is not controversial. The simple fact is that the Arabs of Palestine before 1900 identified fully with their tribes and villages and not at all with each other, and they had no more in common with each other as they had with their neighbors across the Jordan and in Syria.

Some fictions die hard.
Some fictions never die.
The latter is the case here.
But bottom line: Newt Gingrich is right–the “Palestinian People” is an invention, and based on Daniel Pipes, one that is less than 100 years old.

Palestinian Arabs are Jebusites? ROFL!

December 11, 2011

God told Moses: But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them — the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite

Obviously… the Jews didn’t do a great job of this. Damn PEACE HIPPIES always getting in the way.

The Palestinian-Jebusite linkage first appeared in the Arabic literature. Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian activist and historian, wrote that in the mid- or late 1960s, Palestinian nationalism developed a historiography that “anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries, and even millennia, a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern.” In an accompanying footnote, he wrote that this historical “outlook” created a “predilection for seeing in peoples such as the Canaanites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Philistines the lineal ancestors of the modern Palestinians.”…

(Araunah the Jebusite offering his threshing floor to David:)

(EOZ (h/t Dan)From CNN🙂 Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich stands by his support for a Palestinian state, his spokesman said Saturday, despite his comment about an “invented Palestinian people” that has drawn fire from leaders in the West Bank.

Gingrich made the comments in an interview that aired Friday with The Jewish Channel, a U.S. cable channel.
“I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state,” Gingrich said in the interview. “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, who are historically part of the Arab community.”
He added, “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 1940s. I think it’s tragic.”…
Fatah Revolutionary Council member Dimitri Diliani said Gingrich’s remarks reflect “the ignorant, provocative, and racist nature of Mr. Gingrich,” according to WAFA.
The Palestinian people descended from the Canaanite tribe of the Jebusites that inhabited the ancient site of Jerusalem as early as 3200 B.C.E.,” Diliani said. The “Gingrich remarks are ignorant of the basic historical facts of the Middle East.”

This is too good.
The only confirmed mention of the historic Jebusites is in the Hebrew Bible. That’s the only source that says that the Jebusites lived around Jerusalem. This exact same source says that one of their leaders, Araunah, offered to give the Temple Mount to King David; David insisted that he pay for it, and he did  – for the amount of fifty silver shekels.
So if you believe that the Palestinian Arabs are actually Jebusites, you must believe that they sold the Temple Mount to the Jews in a legal transaction.
(Since such a sale to a Jew would get Araunah the death penalty today, perhaps the Palestinians should atone for their sin!)
There is another problem, though.
The Constitution of Palestine refers numerous times to the “Arab Palestinian people” and that “Palestine is part of the large Arab World, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab Nation.” The PLO Charter similarly states “Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”
But Jebusites were not Arabs. They were not even Semites! No self-respecting Jebusite (if any had still existed) would identify with the Arab hordes who overran his homeland in the seventh century. He would probably want to behead the infidel invaders.
Is the constitution and charter wrong? When they call themselves Arab, are they all lying?
Perhaps “Palestine” should quit the Arab League and re-assert its nebulous Jebusite ancestry.
If it isn’t obvious enough already, note how Diliani chooses the Jebusites, not the Hittites or Amorites or other residents of Canaan, to be their ancestors – choosing the one tribe that is associated with Jerusalem.
A real people knows their own history; an invented people will invent their history – and change it whenever it is convenient for them. And since Jerusalem has only become important to the Arab residents of Palestine in the past hundred years, it is convenient to choose specifically that tribe that lived there to be their invented ancestors today.
In other words, Diliani’s absurd assertion is actually proof for Gingrich’s claims.

Many Palestinian Arabs, including such figures as Yasir Arafat and Faisal Husseini, have claimed that Palestinians descended from the Jebusites. Yet there is no historical proof to back up this claim. This modern claim has appeared in the Palestinian Encyclopedia and in Palestinian Authority school textbooks but lacks support in the scholarly communit.

Newt Gingrich: Palestinians Are An ‘Invented’ People | ThinkProgress

December 10, 2011

(thinkprogress.org) Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is courting the Republican Jewish vote with a series of statements showing his unwavering support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pro-Israel American conservatives. On Wednesday, he declared that he would appoint former U.N. ambassador — and outspoken über-hawk — John Bolton to be Secretary of State if elected president. In an interview released today, he struck out an even more extreme position by declaring Palestinians “an…invented people.”
He told The Jewish Channel:

We’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab community and they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel since the 1940s. It’s tragic.

Watch it:

Gingrich, much like former Senator Rick Santorum, is effectively denying the right of Palestinians to a state, a position that goes against the policy positions of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations.
With this assertion comes questions as to where Gingrich thinks the Palestinian — or “Arabs” as he refers to them — should go. Will residents of the West Bank gain full voting rights in a unified Israeli state? Will Israel allow them to stay as second-class citizens with limited voting and legal rights? Or is he in favor of forced deportation?
Gingrich isn’t the only GOP presidential candidate to stake out political ground which, if actually implemented as U.S. policy, would effectively end U.S. support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry have all endorsed moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and Michele Bachmann claims to “already have secured a donor who said they will personally pay for the ambassador’s home to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”

Anything that pisses off so called Think Progress is great news!

At RJC forum, Prez cands will ‘put to bed smears’ by DNC, Wasserman Schultz (also Ron Paul excluded)

December 4, 2011

UPDATEII: The brouhaha continues. See below.
UPDATE: What’s the deal with Ron Paul and the RJC? See below.
When seven of the top Republican presidential candidates gather next week at a forum hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, they will “unequivocally put to bed the political smears” regarding aid to Israel that have been promulgated by the Democratic National Committee and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fla), according to RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks.
In an interview earlier today, Brooks gave me a preview of what to expect at the RJC’s 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates Forum, which is scheduled to take place on Wednesday of next week at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. The event will feature remarks and speeches by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Amb. Jon Huntsman, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). (Note that Texas Rep. Ron Paul, no good friend of Israel, will not be in the house.)
Each of the candidates, Brooks said, will make an effort to “put to bed the political smears by the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Shultz that the leading Republicans want to cut aid to Israel.”
The issue has become a point of concern among pro-Israel forces, most of whom were shocked when Perry declared during a debate earlier this month that foreign aid should “start at zero” for all countries — including Israel (Romney and Gingrich supported zeroing out all foreign aid, but Israel wasn’t specifically mentioned).
Democrats, including the National Jewish Democratic Council, quickly seized on the comments, attempting to paint the Republican candidates as out of touch and potentially harmful to the Jewish state.
Brooks stated that he is certain that each of the Republican candidates will assure the crowd that they would never abandon Israel – and that as commander in chief they would do all they can to bolster it.
And it’s the perfect forum for the candidates to set the record straight on this topic, as the Reagan building will be jam packed with Jewish Republicans, communal leaders and pro-Israel stalwarts.
The RJC has held its candidates forum in each presidential election cycle since 1988. This one, however, is particularly noteworthy as it comes just 30 days before the critical Iowa Caucus.
Brooks anticipates that the candidates will use the podium to crystalize and explain their foreign policy views on a range of subjects, such as Iran.
“You’ll see a lot of the candidates use this an opportunity to clearly articulate their vision for Israel and the challenges in the Middle East, as well as how they plan to lead the country forward out of these challenging economic times,” Brooks said.
In addition, the RJC announced earlier this week that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will provide a keynote address in the afternoon.
“You’ll hear an impassioned argument for why we need change,” said Brooks.
UPDATE: After taking some heat across the interwebs and elsewhere, the RJC clarified its stance on Ron Paul earlier today.
Paul was not invited to attend the RJC’s candidates forum because the organization – as it has stated numerous times in the past – “rejects his misguided and extreme views,” said Brooks.
“He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” Brooks said. Inviting Paul to attend would be “like inviting Barack Obama to speak.”
Mystery solved.
UPDATEII: As they’re known to do, Ron Paul backers have bombed this blog with comments (read: lunacy).
If you want to get a picture of why the RJC is right to exclude Paul, just peruse through some of the bizarre rants in the comments section below. Many verge on being anti- Semitic, while most express overt hostility to the state of Israel.