I’m With Newt Gingrich On Palestinians Being An ‘Invented People’

As far as I’m concerned, Newt Gingrich nailed this one.

The “Palestinians” exist for everyone who has a spiritual and ideological hatred of Israel, and that is the ONLY reason it/they exist. It NEVER existed prior to the existence of Israel and no Arabs even bothered to TRY to create it/them. The so-called “Palestinians” could have and should have gone to the 99-plus percent of the land that was controlled by Arabs; but the Arabs in their rabid hatred of Israel decided it was better to create a festering sore by leaving people in camps and ghettos as a deceitful way to denounce Israel.

Gingrich Gets It Right
Posted by David Horowitz Bio ↓ on Dec 12th, 2011

In an interviewon Saturday, Newt Gingrich put some reality into the surreal discussion of the Middle East conflict and (as he put it) the delusional nature of the current “peace process.” The Palestinians are indeed an “invented people” — invented by the Nasser dictatorship and KGB by the way — and the Hitlerian lie that Israel occupies one square inch of “Arab” let alone “Palestinian” land needs to be buried for any clarity on what the conflict is about, let alone progress towards peace.

Of course there is no peace in the Middle East and there can be no peace so long as the Muslim Arabs want to kill the Jews and destroy the Jewish state. That is the explicit goal of the enemies of Israel in the terrorist entities of Gaza and the West Bank, and also of Israel’s principal enemy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Newt Gingrich’s gutsy statements — if he will hold to them — could change the nature of the debate not only about how to deal with the Islamic terrorists of the Middle East but with the Islamic jihad itself. For the campaign to destroy Israel is at bottom a campaign to restore the Muslim (not Arab) ummah — as it was under the Turkish empire and the caliphate.

According to CNN, a Palestinian spokesman called Gingrich’s observation that the Palestinians are “an invented people” quote “the most racist I’ve ever seen.” This just shows what brazen liars Palestinian spokesmen are. Everything that Gingrich said was obvious fact. For nearly 2,000 years “Palestine” referred to region not a people — just as “New England” refers to a region not a people. In 1948 the Arabs of the Palestine region were not talking about a Palestinian state and were not referring to themselves as Palestinians. That came in 1964 with the creation of the PLO, engineered by the KGB and the Jew-hating dictator of Egypt, Gamel Abdel Nasser​. Even then the PLO charter (which is still available on the web) did not call for the liberation of the West Bank or Gaza (annexed by Jordan and Egypt respectively) but for the destruction of the Jewish state. Jew hatred is what has driven the conflict in the Middle East which is more precisely described as a genocidal war against the Jews.

Here’s another article on the subject from another guy I listen to when it comes to this region:

Newt Gingrich and the “Invented” Palestinian People
by Daniel Pipes
December 10, 2011
Cross-posted from National Review Online

The former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and current Republican presidential candidate said yesterday that “there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab people, and they had the chance to go many places.”

Everyone from the PLO to a Mitt Romney spokesman jumped on Gingrich for this assertion, but he happens to be absolutely correct: no Arabic-speaking Muslims identified themselves as “Palestinian” until 1920, when, in rapid order this appellation and identity was adopted by the Muslim Arabs living in the British mandate of Palestine.

For details, see a long article of mine from 1989 on the topic or a short one from 2000. (December 10, 2011)

I was frankly appalled at the criticism Newt Gingrich received from rival Republicans competing for the GOP nomination.  The only candidate who supported Gingrich’s completely accurate and factual statement was Rick Perry. 

The idea made by Mitt Romney and seconded by most of the candidates that covet Gingrich’s poll numbers that this somehow is “speaking for Israel” is simply asinine.  Newt Gingrich isn’t speaking for anybody; he’s a private citizen and doesn’t even speak for “America,” let alone Israel.  Rather, Newt Gingrich was speaking for “truth.”  And I’m on board with that.

Since Newt said this, I have laughed at the snooty “journalists” who huffed that countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon were “invented,” too, as though somehow that means that we can’t oppose allowing “Palestinians” to be similarly invented.  Because as we all know, the world would obviously have been just so much worse off without the many blessings provided by Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to world harmony.  And the more dictator-controlled hellholes, the better, right?

Al Jazeera puts it this way (you know, after citing the “wisdom” of Vladimir Lenin):

The modern Middle East was born in crisis. Remnants of the Ottoman and Safavid Empires of the 19th century, the countries of this realm only took the form of modern nation states after passing through the brutal mill of European colonialism. Whereas state formation in Europe took centuries to develop, countries in the Middle East were created by the veritable stroke of a pen; by a line drawn on a map; by a decision taken in a smoke-filled boardroom.

So what the hell, let’s get back into that smoke-filled boardroom and invent another country.  Because it’s just worked so damn well in the past and all.  And you know how great the United Nations is about getting things right, right?

Most of the countries “created with the stroke of a pen” are hellholes.  So one question worth serious discussion is why do we want to create another hellhole?

It’s almost as if the left is arguing, “We have a chance to repeat the mistakes of history, and let’s not be timid about doing so.”

Fwiw, when Newt Gingrich says (and when I agree with him) that Palestinians are an “invented people,” neither of us is trying to argue that the Arab people living in the West Bank, etc., are not “real people.”  What we are claiming is the FACT that there had never in history existed a people with a “Palestinian” identity, nor had there ever existed a nation-state with that identity.  EVER.  There is no legitimate historical reason to ascribe to them the idenity that the United Nation and liberals and various other enemies of Israel have been attempting to ascribe to them.  And these people – who have genuine needs and are genuinely suffering – should have been absorbed by the many surrounding regions and nations out of which they came from in the first place.  And I further submit that it is not Israel, but those Arab countries, to whom the real blame ought to be directed for ignoring the plight of the “Palestinians” and abandoning them to neglect.  Because these their own people literally WANTED these people to suffer simply so they could point a finger at Jews and say, “See what you did?”

For more than sixty years Arabs have allowed the “Palestinians” to suffer in ghettos and camps because they would not take care of their own people.  Rather than give a damn about their fellow Arabs in need, they preferred to keep hating on Israel and say, “We want nothing to do with these Arabs because we frankly have no respect for human life whatsoever, but YOU ought to care more about our people than we do and provide for them.”

So before you attack me as a “racist” or an anti-Palestinian “bigot” or whatever, realize that I will merely re-direct those charges right back at you and state that in fact YOU are the hater who wants these poor people to suffer just so you can point a finger of blame at the Jews you so rabidly despise.

Rush Limbaugh Discusses Ronald Reagan And Demonstrates Why Liberals Must Be Defeated Rather Than Reasoned With

I thought this was a very interesting discussion.  Here’s the transcript of it, with the response that I found most significant in bold font:

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I, um… I’m calling because… Well, first of all, I’m a liberal, and I seriously don’t understand this, uh, Reagan idolatry on behalf of conservatives.  I’ll get… I’ll give you my reasons.  Instead of privatizing Social Security, he raised taxes. We’re all paying higher taxes today out of our paychecks every single week because he decided to save Social Security.  He —

RUSH:  Wait, wait.  Hold it.  I need to go…

CALLER: (speaking rapidly)
 
 
RUSH: Wait. Jeez.

CALLER:  The Greenspan Commission.  He signed it into law, and it raised taxes on Social Security.

RUSH:  What…? Wait, you’re talking about Reagan or Clinton?

CALLER:  I’m talking about Reagan.  Reagan did that.  He raised taxes on Social Security.  He negotiated with terrorists, sending — over and over again — arms to Iran in exchange for hostages; by contrast Jimmy Carter didn’t give an inch to the Iranians.

RUSH:  What in the world…?

CALLER:  Not an inch.  Instead Reagan (crosstalk)

RUSH:  Testing the true depth of my politeness here on this call, folks.

CALLER:  Say that again?

RUSH:  Let me ask you a question.  What do you think, given all this that you believe, when you hear Obama and the Democrats cite Reagan as they have been doing since about a week before the State of the Union?

CALLER:  It’s funny you ask that.  Because as a liberal I think Obama owes his presidency to Reagan.  They’re both kinda stuffed suits that say one thing and then do another.  Obama hasn’t been anywhere near liberal enough for me.  He said he’d close Guantamano (sic), he hasn’t done that.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: He said he’d help people out with foreclosures, he hasn’t done that.

RUSH:  I feel for you on that.

CALLER:  But Reagan, I mean, amnesty to people who are breaking the law and living in the country illegally. He said, “Forget about it. Stay here forever.” He cut and ran from Lebanon. How many hundreds of Marines were killed —

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: — and he just decided, “Well, you know, instead of the fighting the bad guys I’m gonna run away”?

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?

RUSH:  “Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?”  I don’t think you… Given what you’ve said, and I’m not trying to avoid the question, I don’t think you’d ever understand it.

CALLER:  Well, he’s a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists.  Why is he a hero to conservatives?  I don’t think you understand it.

RUSH:  No, I do. Most assuredly I do.  I just don’t think that you would understand it.  Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes on Social Security?  What websites do you read?  Where did you pick that up?

CALLER:  Look up the Greenspan Commission.  It’s not too hard to find.  I mean, it’s a matter of history.

RUSH:  Where did you get it?  I mean, you’re asking me questions.  I’m just reversing one on you here.

CALLER:  I’m sorry.  It’s just general knowledge.  It’s something I’ve known for a long time. I can’t remember where I got it from.

RUSH: You can’t remember? You’ve never heard of a website called Media Matters which highlighted it yesterday?

CALLER: (static) Oh, no. I know Media Matters very well but that’s not where I got it.

RUSH: Oh, not where you got it. It’s an amazing coincidence.

CALLER: (static) I mean, I’m a liberal.  Of course I know Media Matters.

RUSH:  Amazing coincidence out there.

CALLER: (static blaring) They’re a fantastic website.  But why are you dodging the question?  I want to know why a tax-raising, amnesty-giving, cut-and-running, negotiating-with-terrorists guy is a hero to the conservative movement.

RUSH:  Well, because you understand Reagan in a way that is flawed. You —

CALLER: (static)

RUSH: Your call is actually kinda interesting because you represent the impossibility of “bridging the gap.”  Somebody like you just has to be defeated.  There’s no crossing the aisle and finding common ground with you.  You’re free to be who you are, don’t misunderstand.  I’m not trying to be insulting. I’m just saying, you are unreachable. You don’t want to be reached.  This picture of Reagan, you’ve just described somebody you should love, and you hate him! You just described somebody you should absolutely love, all these things. He’s an anti-conservative, as you say, but you don’t love him. You’re having trouble understanding why he’s viewed as heroic to a lot of people. 

I could talk to you about anti-communism. I could. You want to talk about amnesty? Yeah, that was Simpson-Mazzoli, and that was one-and-a-half, two million illegals; and he was told, “Okay, if we’re gonna do this, this is it, then. We’re gonna secure the borders and that’s it.”  It’s the same thing with every tax increase he signed. It was also accompanied by promises to cut spending, and it never happened.  Reagan’s not perfect.  Nobody is.  But I think the proof of Reagan is the fact that when your guys get in trouble, who do they seek to associate themselves with?  Remember, Obama and these people are all about getting votes. 

The fact that he’s trying to surround himself with Reagan, the fact that he’s trying to position himself with Reagan is the best indication anybody could have of what this country really thinks of Ronaldus Magnus.  I think if you want to focus in on hypocrisy, you’ve got far more of it on your side of the aisle to explain and dig through than we do.  Reagan was forced to raise payroll taxes by a crisis in Social Security in 1983. He endorsed that rescue plan that was written by Alan Greenspan. It was reluctant.  He was not a big supporter of that.  Remember, Reagan did not have a congressional majority with him.

Everything he got, the tax cuts, he had Democrats outnumbering him in the House and Senate everywhere.  There were certain realities that he faced.  But the biggest tax increase on Social Security was authored by none other than Bill Clinton.  But did you understand the notion? Ronald Reagan fought for America.  He loved America.  He feared where the left, based on history, wanted to take the country.  Ronald Reagan set the stage for the end of the Cold War.  Ronald Reagan defeated Soviet communism without firing a shot.  I don’t know… But none of that would matter.  So you, sir, a nice individual, I’m sure you’re a fine guy (probably not too much fun at a ball game, unlike Bill Clinton), but still, you illustrate that people like you just have to be defeated, not met halfway and gotten along with.  I mean politically.

Rush is entirely correct here.  You can’t have a rational or meaningful discussion with people like this liberal caller.  You can only defeat them and render them powerless politically.

You can’t have an honest conversation with a dishonest person. There is simply no point.  They won’t tell you what’s really on their heart and mind; they merely constantly employ rhetorical games that mean nothing and go nowhere.  In the case of Rush’s caller, you had a man who simply spoke lies about Ronald Reagan.  If he had actually believed any of his own crap, he would have LOVED Reagan, as Rush pointed out.

I remember a discussion I had with a liberal on an article I wrote about the tax cuts.  An individual who called himself “michael” wrote and said:

I am at work right now but i just read this article and it is the funniest thing i have ever read. no hate intended but it looks like it was written by someone who read someone elses work and is trying to claim their opinion as his or her own

Well, this individual dismisses my work as having been plagerized.  That certainly wasn’t true.  I wrote every word that I didn’t directly cite as a quote and legitimately sourced every citation as having been quoted.  But after a little dicussion this same liberal writes another comment that supposedly puts me in m place.  Among other huge problems with this comment was the fact that my former professor’s nose smelled a rat.  Basically, the tone of the two writers didn’t match one another.  I googled part of the diatribe, and sure enough, discovered that the selfsame liberal who falsely accused me of plagerizing had actually completely plagerized his rebuttal to me.

After exposing his dishonesty, I said:

You are not an honest person, Michael. And there is no point having a discussion with a liar. Because the truth and the facts don’t matter to a liar. And someone like you can and will say anything and claim lies as fact.

And I’m not going to waste my time with you.

And that’s where we’re at.  There’s no “bridging the gap” with liberals.  There’s no rational dialogue.  They have a warped and depraved worldview, which means they cannot even possibly understand the world as it really is (i.e., from the “God’s-eye view”), and then, to make it even worse, far too few of them are personally honest enough to have a meaningful discussion involving facts and truth because dishonest people will simply invent “facts” and surround themselves in lies.

Rush ultimately informs the audience that Reagan basically NEVER had Republican control of Congress throughout his entire presidency.  The House of Representatives, which controls spending, was under complete Democrat control for every single year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency (with first Tip O’Neil and then Jim Wright serving as Democrat Speakers of the House).  As for the Senate, it was also under Democrat control for part of Reagan’s presidency; and Reagan NEVER had a strong majority there.  So the caller was not depicting events honestly: it wasn’t like Reagan realized his policies were failing and raised taxes.  Rather, Reagan had to constantly negotiate and compromise with Democrats in control of the Congress – particularly the House – and was forced to make concessions to get other things he wanted.

Furthermore, this caller who plagued Rush was little different from the blogger who plagued me.  He passed off liberal talking points as his own thoughts.  It turns out that this caller was merely regurgitating crap that was flying out of the mouths of the vomitous left.  You can see a conservative response to these slime attacks on Reagan here.

So let me quote that article’s response to the liberal’s charge that Reagan gave illegal’s amnesty:

The Democrat leadership in Congress promised to enact strict enforcement measures as a trade for a one-time amnesty deal. In an effort to control the border, Reagan went along with the deal.  At the time (1986), the measures were marketed by Democrats as as being able to stop illegal immigration. Ted Kennedy himself sold the enforcement clauses of the law as strong enough to ensure that only a one-time amnesty would be needed. But, as is their standard practice, Democrats lied about sealing the border.

Which not only shows that Reagan most certainly did NOT say, “Forget about it. Stay here forever,” as the caller deceitfully claims, but in fact goes back to the now documented proof that liberals are liars who cannot be trusted and cannot be bargained with or reasoned with.

The caller describes Reagan as running from Lebanon with his tail between his legs.  Which is actually funny, given the fact that Democrats at the time demanded that Reagan immediately pull out of Lebanon after the Beirut bombing that killed 241 Marines.  Nobody on the left was demanding we attack Lebanon.

I have my own perspective on that.

Reagan’s pullout from Lebanon bothered me greatly at the time.  But I realize the Reagan’s wisdom now.  He was already in the process of fighting and defeating the Soviet Union – the largest military power on earth – and he saw the folly of getting America into another war against a different ideology and another limitless enemy at the same time.  If you were in the infantry in the 1980s, you knew that we were preparing for some potentially imminent conflagration; and we would be pouring in to Western Europe to fight a defensive war against a Soviet invasion.  Ronald Reagan wisely chose to stay the course in facing and defeating the Soviet Union, and allow the Islamic threat to remain for another day when the Russian threat was gone.  Just imagine how much the Russians would have loved it to be able to supply millions of death-happy Muslims and watch us bleed from the sidelines in an endless proxy war?  Which is to say that the caller not only misrepresents what in actual fact happened – making him a liar – but also argues that Reagan should have fought two civilizational wars simultaneously, making him a complete fool.

When Democrats routinely pursue such deceit, it becomes pointless to argue with them.  It boils down to the Mark Twain wisdom of, “Never argue with a fool.  People won’t be able to tell the difference.”  Try to reason with those independents who are capable of “bridging the gap,” as Rush Limbaugh put it.  Argue with people who might change their minds.  Argue with people who won’t play a neverending tune of rhetorical garbage.  Argue with people who won’t constantly rely on lies.

And just defeat liberals.  Because defeat is the only reality that they are capable of understanding.