Skip to comments.Arab League condemns Gingrich's remarks on Palestinians
Posted on 12/12/2011 5:22:08 AM PST by KyGeezer
The Arab League has condemned the Republican US presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, for calling Palestinians an "invented" people and "terrorists".
Mohammed Sobeih, who handles Palestinian affairs for the regional organisation, said the claims were racist and a cheap stunt to get votes.
Mr Gingrich made the comments in a television interview on Friday and in a candidates' debate on Saturday.
Israel's government has said the claims are a matter of internal US politics.
However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who leads a right-wing coalition government, has recognised the Palestinian people.
'Vulgar, hurtful and ridiculous'
Mr Gingrich, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination and a former speaker of the US House of Representatives, first set out his position on the Palestinian people in an interview with the Jewish Channel.
"Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman empire," he said.
"I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were 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 now since the 1940s, and it's tragic," he added.
He also said President Barack Obama's Middle East policy was "out of touch", and the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank, and Hamas, which governs Gaza, had "an enormous desire to destroy Israel".
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Gingrich scores another point.
>>Mohammed Sobeih, who handles Palestinian affairs for the regional organisation, said the claims were racist and a cheap stunt to get votes.
Funny, I didn’t know Palestine was a race.
Maybe it’s just people are fed up with your s***, Mr. Sobeih.
I honestly don’t care what the Arab League likes or dislikes, but the Israeli position for quite a few years has been based on a two state solution with Israel living within secure borders. Now along comes a Gingrich Administration saying, “Palestinians? What Palestinians?” That would tend to undercut Israel’s position and remove any part the U.S. might have been able to play in helping negotiate a solution. Except for platitudes about how we stand behind them and tossing money to them, a President Gingrich would, in effect, cut Israel lose to fend for themselves.
A genocidal arab complaining about racism.. what a joke.
Well then Mr. Gingrich's remarks must have been true and accurate.
Mr. Gingrich was dead right.
It’s time someone said it like it is.
I only hope he doesn’t apologise.
Are the palis now a race?
Is every disagreement racist?
Newt needs Secret Service protection ASAP.
It’s going to be nice seeing the Arabs squirm over this. Implementing a PC agenda is quite different from re-writing history and historical facts, much of which the general public is about to be schooled in....
Please note that none of the Arabs condemning Newt has made any attempt to refute him.
the two state solution is also a matter of international agreement going back to the UN Partition.
The original OWS of the Middle East.
Saddam Husein gave Kuwait to the Palestinians. It became the Palestinian Promised land so to speak.
Palis came and for a brief interval occupied the seats of power and bureaucracy . They were subsequently tossed.
Generally, the Gulf Arabs loathe the Palis.
So does Israel continue to pursue a two state solution with a people Gingrich says doesn't exist? Or do they pack it in and continue retaining the land populated with several million people who want them dead?
Noot was wrong: They're all terrorists.
Or, more likely, telegraph his clear intention to abandon the stupid "Two State" position and really stand behind Israel.
I´ve been posting variations of this for years, that for the appellations of the ancient Romans, there is no so-called palestine, nor are there any palestinians but for various conglomerations of predominantly islamist arabs who should rather be killed in the warfare they seek, but that Israel has decided, for whatever God forsaken reason, to put up with the utter nonsense that are these stupid, stone age...people.
Cheap stunt to get votes.
Move 'em on, head 'em up,
Head 'em up, move 'em out,
Move 'em on, head 'em out Rawhide!
Set 'em out, ride 'em in
Ride 'em in, let 'em out,
Cut 'em out, ride 'em in....Rawhide.
(rollin rollin rollin)
You assume there is a solution, in the sense that there is a set of concessions which would forever satisfy the Muslims, while retaining Israel's existence.
I don't believe there is any such solution. The problem is not with the "Palestinians", it's with the rest of the Muslim world, and with Islam itself. Islam cannot tolerate a non-Islamic state in the middle of the Islamic region, on territory that used to be under Islamic control.
Newt now has a straight road to insisting that the US build the pipeline to Canada. Better yet, he needs say that it might make more sense to actually build a refinery on the east coast instead of pushing the oil all the way down to the Gulf Coast. We would be told that this would lose him votes up north but I doubt it. Jobs beat everything right now. Perry is 100% right about that.
Before he says the things above he needs to scream drill-baby-drill over and over and over. It is the only hope to getting the US out if the ditch.
Screw the Arab/Palestinians and their asinine so-called religion. Not a penny more to any of these idiots. They have played this country as a patsy for decades. Enough!
“Please not that none of the Arabs condemning Newt has made any attempt to refute him.”
Exactly right, because they can’t. Newt spoke truthfully. So now they do what all liberals, progressives, fascist, marxists, Democrats and MSM types do: Ignore the facts and cry racism or some other canard.
Good for Newt. I may just have vote for him.
Arab League condemns Gingrich’s remarks on Palestinians: PROOF that he is on the right track!
Either the UN partition was legal or the UN partition was not legal. If it was legal, the Palestinian position has a problem. If it was not legal, Israel has a problem. If it was legal, the 2 state solution is the answer.
Israel has done a good job, given the situation, creating a democratic state, establishing its economic base in the face of possessing no oil whatsoever and being located in a harsh land.
The Palestinians have been less successful and have suffered the consequences of poor leadership. It’s a shame. By now, both could have been assisting their own citizens in improving their lives, there has been enough time, money and effort to the Palestinians, but it has been stolen and misappropriated and squandered.
I don't believe there is any such solution. The problem is not with the “Palestinians”, it's with the rest of the Muslim world, and with Islam itself. Islam cannot tolerate a non-Islamic state in the middle of the Islamic region, on territory that used to be under Islamic control."
Agree. The only solution acceptable to the Arab Muslims is the destruction of Israel and the death or expulsion of all of the Jews IMO.
Cheap? Likely not. That's a hard statement to walk back.
Stunt? Perhaps. Campaigning is like that.
Curious, what would you have preferred he say? Or would you have just preferred that someone else have said it?
Palestinian is no more a race than hispanic, arab or muslim is a race. They are no different from the azatlan invaders or occupy whatever dip$h!ts in this country; they are illegal squatters who have no claim to anything much less nation status.
**** the arab league... in fact... **** the arab.
> ...the Israeli position for quite a few years has been based on a two state solution with Israel living within secure borders. That [Newt’s claim about Palestinian nationality] would tend to undercut Israel’s position...<
Gingrich’s — in my opinion, substantially correct — claim doesn’t mean that Israel can’t continue negotiating or not negotiating, as it chooses, with the people who are opposing it there. The fact that those people weren’t an independent nationality previously doesn’t mean that they can’t become one. It just reduces the credibility of their demands somewhat in demanding to become one [despite their own previous rejection of the two-state agreement].
They (or the generation before them) could have become one at the time of the modern founding of Israel, but they and the Arab states around them announced that they would not accept the division of the land that had been planned. Instead they tried to destroy Israel, and settle the matter by force. They chose to go for double or nothing. Then, when they lost, in effect said, “Now let’s go back to where we were. We have a right to that land.”
I think that as inhabitants — even if not a previously established nationality — they did have some right to some of the land now controlled by Israel, and would have been entitled to form a state of their own if that was their wish. Once the Arabs chose to settle the matter by force, though, Israel was put under the necessity of strengthening itself by occupying enough land to protect itself and insure its survival (and, if it chooses to negotiate, to have something to bargain with).
The Arab countries that chose to fight should have absorbed the refugees into their societies. That has happened with refugees countless times all over the world. Are the borders of the European countries where they have always been? Of course not. Time after time the losers in wars (some of whom were to blame for them, some of whom weren’t) have lost land. There’s nothing about the “Palestinians” that gives them the right to retain the land they previously occupied after trying to destroy their neighbors.
If Israel thinks it can reach a lasting settlement with them, fine (the prospects don’t look very good, though). The mere claim that there’s a Palestinian nationality doesn’t entitle them to one. Remember too that many of these people went into the streets and cheered when they heard about 9-11. Though, through the vicissitudes of history, individuals among them have suffered injustices for which they were not responsible, as a group they don’t have much sympathy from me.
If some muzzie hurls his shoes at Newt during a press conference, then Newt could be unstoppable.
There’s a huge anti-Islamic backlash in this country that’s just waiting to happen, and Newt could ride it to victory if he plays it right.
Newt won my vote with this.
He’s my guy now.
Totally unrelated, but humorous.
As it does what?
I tend to agree with you. So a Gingrich Administration that admits that any talk of a solution in the Mid-East is wasted effort would be refreshing. It's hard to make peace when one side's only acceptable solution is the destruction of the other side.
I think that Non-Sequitur would definitely agree with you.
Ah but what would The Globe say? Since that seems to be your gold standard for media information...
You do remember the six days in 1967 don't you?
That's what got them into their current situation isn't it?
I guess it should have been a seven day war.
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.