75 Replies to “Gingrich On Israel”

  2. Gingrich’s big “crime” here was to disagree with the narrative of the Radical Left, which is to consistently condemn Israel and treat the Palestinians like victims.
    Ironically, many nominal American Jews of the Leftist persuasion will *still* vote for Obama. Why? Because Leftism is a secular religion that usurps any & all other religions.

  4. Shawn,your link is to a video from the John Birch Society,hardly what we here would consider a credible source.

  6. I’m starting to feel a lot more secure with Mr. Gingrich at the helm already…
    and after these past few years, I think the American people are ready for, as Newt implies, someone who simply tells the truth.

  7. David Horowitz has something up on this at FrontPage.com, as well as does the estimable Robert Spencer at jihadwatch.com.
    From the latter, a quote:
    “Funny thing, however: there was no “Palestinian” “outrage” when PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said 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.
    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.’
    ET, please call your office!

  8. finally the whole truth has been spoken
    wake up listen to Mr. Gingrich
    before it is to late
    they do not want peace with Israeli
    they want to kill the people of Israeli
    fh

  9. It warmed my heart to watch Stephanopolous sincerely believe Erakat’s (?) idea that what Gingrich says will interfere with peace. So brave to show his ignorant, Western-centric biases these days! Erekat knows the Western liberal knee jerk biases so well, kudos to him and his Moscow trainers!

  10. Unrelated, but this changes my view of Gingrich not one iota.
    I like what Michelle Bachmann (the best candidate, and therefore no chance!) said on Hannity with reference to the $1.6 million Gingrich took from Freddie Mac: “influence peddling” she called it. Which it was. He took the dough to persuade senior Repubs to leave Freddie alone. SCUM.
    If it’s between Romney and Gingrich, America is fooked.

  11. They say Newt’s got baggage. Well, baggage, shmaggage. The guy FIGHTS, something you can’t say about “Mitt the Milquetoast”.

  12. Leftists dissect and chew on every word said by the likes of Gingrich, all the while choosing not to hear or believe the words of Islamic jihadists and Palestinian extremists who say publicly they want to exterminate Jews.
    Gimme a break.

  14. Just once I’d like to hear Newt say the administration has “no balls” instead of “no courage” with regard to the Middle East.
    The wimpy ninnies would certainly get their knickers in a knot then!

  17. Post by: Me No Dhimmi at December 11, 2011 3:09 PM
    I don’t agree with ‘Me No Dhimmi’ because I think that ‘Newt’ is taking the center vote, middle of the road politics has put leaders in place. Look at what PMSH done. As for baggage, like ‘tower’ said “baggage, shmaggage”. The POTUS has far more excessive crap than Newt has on any given day.

  18. Sure, he’s right about Israel and the Palaminos, he is right about most other stuff and he has the experience to know how and what to do to save America from collapse. He is also a Reagan conservative and might be the best choice for president, but … ahh … well ….. he’s been ah …. married three times eh?.
    In a country where half of all marriages end in divorce and where most people have been married more than once …. well … he just won’t do now will he.

  19. The reason Newt won’t do is that he is, to quote Mark Steyn, a lily-livered ninny.
    He backed down when Acorn challenged him on increasing school lunches in 94, he backed down on the shutdown, he is by turns either a whining or snarling windbag who can’t control his golden oration even in the friendly venue of a Republican debate. His past record demonstrating his lack of resolve and integrity is why he’s unacceptable. The multiple wives are just a freckle, compared to his lack of character. Remember this is the guy who was shellacked by – Clinton! Clinton only appeared strong because he bested someone very weak.

  20. The reason Newt won’t do is that he is, to quote Mark Steyn, a lily-livered ninny.
    He backed down when Acorn challenged him on increasing school lunches in 94, he backed down on the shutdown, he is by turns either a whining or snarling windbag who can’t control his golden oration even in the friendly venue of a Republican debate. His past record demonstrating his lack of resolve and integrity is why he’s unacceptable. The multiple wives are just a freckle, compared to his lack of character. Remember this is the guy who was shellacked by – Clinton! Clinton only appeared strong because he bested someone very weak.

  21. “the Israelis are getting rocketed every day” No
    “enough lying about the Middle East” Then you should have stopped there.
    “courage, guts, historian” Patting yourself on the back is not a policy.
    Juan Cole makes this point about American policy under the democrats —
    // Gingrich’s assertions […] have been refuted by two generations of scholarship by academic historians who actually study Palestinians in Arabic, and Gingrich has in any case made his allegations a simple-minded way that makes them hard to take seriously.
    The important thing to realize is that Gingrich is not an outlier in Washington, and that the US government consistently acts as though it believes exactly what Gingrich says. //

  22. it seems to me he just put on a giant bulls eye; I hope someone’s watching his back. But he’s right and It would be a good thing if this changes the direction of debates to come.

  24. Juan cole??
    “The important thing to realize is that Gingrich is not an outlier in Washington, and that the US government consistently acts as though it believes exactly what Gingrich says.”
    No, that is exactly, nearly the opposite of what the US Govt. believes, or State at least. Sole is trying to make himself “anti-establiment.” Nope, he is the establishment.

  25. Romney is a liberal. He has presidential hair an a nice suit, but it looks empty.
    The best people can’t win it …. Bachmann and Santorum would probably be the best, but they simply can’t win..
    I like some of what Paul says, but he looks and talks like a whack job, so he can’t win.
    Newt says he has had an epiphany, he may turn out to be the real deal. It’s worth a shot. He will make Obama look like the twit he is in a debate. That’s worth something in itself,
    If Obama wins there will be a civil war, because the right has been patient and polite, but that has worn off now and we are facing an existential threat to what’s left of our freedoms and prosperity.
    I hope the American people won’t go down without a fight,

  26. Newt is right. It is time for the US to tell the truth. There are hundreds if not thousands of “truths” the US could address if they grew a pair. No aid or military protection to any country that does not treat members of all races equally. No aid or military protection to any country that kills women for adultery or other phony baloney “women are property” crimes. No aid or military protection for any country that does not let women vote, give testimony in court, drive cars or enjoy all the rights and privileges to the same degree that men enjoy. No aid or military protection for any country that makes homosexuality a crime. No aid or military protection for any country that does not aggressively hunt, capture or kill terrorists dedicated to harming the United States of America. Before entering the US, tourists and immigrants must pass a lie detector test confirming that they accept the laws of the United States of America as the highest laws of the land, and that they will follow US law in the face of contrary sharia law or any other law. Free speech trumps hurt feelings. No country may manipulate their currency in order to develop and maintain unfair trading practices. Canada must pay its fair share for the military security of North America through a combination of equipment, soldiers and bases for American military ordnance. These truths should be put forward and acted upon until reality comes into somewhat sharper focus.

  28. The main question is whether the 2012 election campaign will be about what to do in the Middle East, or who to blame for world war three.
    The problems we face will only get worse. I think containment of radical Islam might work for a generation or two, but how do you prevent all those high probabilities of disaster from eventually multiplying out to something higher than 50-50? Such as Pakistan losing control of their nukes, Iran succeeding in extending its influence throughout the region … Egypt (no further comment required) … oy vey.
    I also don’t see much difference eventually between Romney and Gingrich. Either will be a vast improvement. Neither will be perfect. I agree Ron Paul is a mixture of promise and threat. The White House is not a laboratory to test out political theories. The past three years have proven that. Gingrich talks less tactfully than Romney, but as they are likely to be 1-2 on the ticket in some combination, we’ll be getting a blend. They should move to an accommodation now and begin to strengthen the ticket. Obama has to go down. That’s the only real point of this discussion.

  29. It would be nice if Newt and the rest would worry less about Israel and more about the United States.

  30. The truth is Israel only ever wanted peace with the “palestinian” terrorists from the begining. The constantly have tried to get them to stop attacking them. All they ever got in return was more terrorism.

  31. The borders creating Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and Arabia were drawn by Europeans reflecting no local interests. Historically there was no such thing as a Palestinian. They were only invented after Jordan let its claim lapse because it had no desire to be perpetually at war. Palestinians have no such qualms.

  32. Gingrich is right. The current administration cares not for history, morality and stability. This indifference (if not malice) will bite the US as it will burn Israel.

  33. Here’s a thought.
    Lets put aside for one moment who the best candidate is.
    What do you suppose would happen to US policy if the nominee campaigned with the promise to put all the other candidates in their cabinet?

  34. I think its nice to see Mr. Gingrich come out and say “Water is wet, the sky is blue”. That’s pretty much what he did. If nothing else, the pickle-faced look on George “Steffy” Snuffelupagus was totally worth it. Looked like he bit a lemmon. HA!
    But, it does make me wonder why the rest of the android forces there didn’t say anything similar, and why Mr. Newt made such a big deal out of it. Sleight of hand, perhaps? Red meat for the troops?
    Ron Paul is on record as in favor of cutting Israel loose, maybe Newt’s cutting Mr. Paul loose.

  35. KATE,
    Thanx for the this post. Simply tends to strongly suggest that, with no Stephane Dion type running (yes…it’s tongue in cheek!) Newt is the best. ‘Walter’ “Mitty” Romney is a white ‘Big 0’…IMO.
    Again…thanx Kate. (my position is that it’s the best of the rest, now that Cain has been retired).

  37. Mr. Gingrich is a clever politician. He has correctly surmised that Republican friendly voters are in the mood for this narrative. It will be interesting to see how long he can continue to read his target constituency.

  38. I agree with Howie. Was not a few months ago when Gingrich defended his position in an interview where he agreed with the forcing people to buy health care – basically agreeing with Obamacare? Was not a few months ago he attacked Paul Ryan’s bill as being right wing extremism? What was all that? I don’t care what he says. Not voting for him.

  39. Well, me no dhimmi, I don’t agree with Gingrich’s statement that, essentially, because there were, for the last hundreds and hundreds of years no people ‘called’ Palestinians and that the people living there for centuries were not a distinct and unique ethnicity.. then, there can’t ever be a Palestinian state.
    After all, that’s illogical. That is essentially saying that people exist only as ethnic groups {also called identity politics]. And that only such a distinct ethnic group is ‘allowed’ to ‘have’ a nation. Is that true?
    Before Canada as a nation existed, were there a people, distinct ethnically, called ‘Canadians’? No? Well, gosh, doesn’t that mean that Canada shouldn’t be allowed to exist as a nation?
    Before America existed, was there an ethnic group called ‘Americans’? No? What about other nations – are they all, each one, derived from some ancient, pure ethnic group? No?
    The reality is, that Palestinians exist now, as a population, and want their own nation. What’s wrong with that?
    I concur with Krauthammer, a staunch supporter of Israel by the way, who says the same thing and criticized Gingrich’s view. Krauthammer too is a realist; the Palestinians exist. Now. And there is no reason to deny them a national self-governance.
    But as I’ve argued many times – the reasons against Palestinian nationhood aren’t about ‘ethnic purity’ and claims that: Only If you existed ‘as a distinct population’ for thousands of years..can you claim self-governance as a nation. I’ve outlined these reasons before.
    However, I have my doubts about Gingrich. I think he’s better than Romney. I’m concerned that Romney..well, it’s hard to outline..but he slithers. He’s a smooth talker; he debates well. But.. My concern about Gingrich is his temper. He’s shrewd, he’s sharp, he knows both history and theory – and can deal with Obama’s slick lies.
    I still prefer Perry – who is tongue-tied, not a TV persona (slow talker) – but who is a genuine fiscal and constitutional conservative.
    I cannot stand Bachmann, who treats Americans as if they were all essentially her potential foster children, and Santorum is ..well, he seems naive in my view.
    So, I waver between Perry and Gingrich. It is interesting that the general GOP people seem to be moving towards Gingrich. Romney has been stuck, dead stuck, at about 25% forever. But people seem to be forgiving of Gingrich’s baggage – and he has a lot of it – but to Gingrich’s credit, he admits it. He doesn’t, like Obama, try to hide it or pretend that he, ahh, never listened to Rev. Wright for 20 years..Gingrich is honest and open about himself, admitting his errors. He’s real.
    Obama is pure fiction. Gingrich is real. And that, I’d say, is Gingrich’s strength. He’s real, and people are tired of fiction, of manipulation, of teleprompter speeches…

  40. David Goldman in his new book, “It’s not the end of the world, it’s the end of YOU” talks of Lincoln as a grim killer who was prepared to do anything to end slavery and to prevent its expansion; and of Tecumseh Sherman who said after Atlanta that it was not the end of the war; it was going to be necessary to kill 300,000 Southerners, and the more they ran the harder it would be. Goldman concludes that the US has a lot more killing in the world to do, and it might as well get used to it.

  41. ET:
    I applaud your reasoning in the first five paragraphs of your post. Your points are sound and correct.
    Sometimes the political discourse is side-tracked by views as to what should or could have been, rather than what is the case NOW.
    I personally liked Cain, he seemed to be a breath of fresh air, but he’s toast now. A shame, but that is life.
    From a position of not liking Gingrich, I have changed … he comes across as somewhat Reaganesque.
    I just hope that the GOP can get their act together to successfully get this insipid marxist out of the White House…and his mooch wife as well.

  42. The term Palestine, is actually what the Romans termed the region.
    I’m sure that before King David referred to the land as Israel, that Canaan was the term of reference.
    Sticking with a name given by the old Roman Empire would suggest Rome was still in charge, that or the Holy Roman Emperor.
    History, ain’t it grand?

  43. I want the GOP nom to be the one who can beat obama the easiest. Gingrich is not that candidate. His corruption-ridden past were he the Dem nom would have the vast majority of those reading this apopolectic and claiming that such a person is unfit for POTUS. He is a brilliant, if scattered mind very crafted and capable at debate. But hardly any of his co-workers and allies during his days in the house have endorsed him and legions of conservative commentators have declared him unfit – from krauthammer, to steyn, to coulter, to Hume.
    Romney is flawed but not unfit. His greatest sin may actually be his boring competence and cautiousness.
    among the current field he has the best CV for POTUS by far.
    But as Bill Kristol points out there is still the very real chance of a late candidiate or even a brokered convention. Under such a circumstance as a hung primary where no current candidate gets over or near 50% support and with the primary calendar very back-loaded with several huge states not until the end, a call to service for many GOP leaders may go out. Some On that list are the following:
    Daniels
    Christie
    Jindal
    Ryan
    McDonnell
    It could be a very interesting and exciting year. A good year to not endorse anyone right away.

  44. I still prefer Perry – who is tongue-tied, not a TV persona (slow talker) – but who is a genuine fiscal and constitutional conservative.
    ~ET
    Totally agree with this statement.
    Of the Republican slate of candidates which are vying for the RNC Nihil Obstat , Perry is the only comparatively sane true Conservative, fence sitting on the Mexican illegals issue as he does so that in the realm of realpolitik he can continue on as Governor of Texas if his bid to become the “R” Presidential candidate fails.
    What impressed me most about Rick Perry when he announced his run for candidacy was when he said he would work to make the Federal U.S. Government “ as inconsequential in people’s lives as possible”.
    Sure the “as possible” qualifier leaves some wiggle room, but it’s a promise that no other GOP candidate, including Ron Paul, has made an approach to.

  46. bruce – thanks.
    What I think the strong support for people like Cain, Paul and Gingrich is showing, is that people are tired of rhetoric, tired of speeches filled with vapid ambiguous ‘hope and change’. They want reality. Hard facts – that they know are real; that they know acknowledge the real state of the economy etc.
    They are prepared to ignore faults, as long as the candidate himself acknowledges them. So, that’s Gingrich – who says that he’s done stupid and ignorant things. Can you imagine Obama talking about himself that way? Never. Obama instead says he never heard Rev Wright’s vicious anti-american, anti-white, anti-semitic rants. Obama hides his records – while Gingrich’s are all open for anyone to see and comment on..and he admits them.
    People are tired of being manipulated by a slick president who lives only in rhetoric. They want facts.
    My advice to the GOP is to showcase this enormous different: fact and fiction.
    At every instance, say: ‘With all due respect, Mr. Obama, but your statement is pure fiction and unsupported by facts. The facts about the economy are..such and such’…and be very specific.
    Say: “Mr. Obama operates in a world of fiction, defined within his own words. We, the GOP, acknowledge the hard facts of reality – and we will confront and deal with this reality. Not with more words but with action”.
    Emphasize this enormous difference; Obama lives in a fictional world (remember how he’s redefined terrorism as ‘man-caused disasters’?). He does this because it makes him feel that he controls reality. heh. Never. Reality has its own way of moving into one’s fictional tales and announcing itself as far more powerful than any words..
    Define the GOP and its candidates as realists not fiction writers; as focused on accepting hard data and taking action to remedy the problems..
    My concern about Romney is that he seems trapped in words; he’s slick..but.
    So -it’s Gingrich or Perry. Gingrich can, of course, talk in his realism. Perry can’t talk; but he gets things done.

  47. Very interesting conversation here. EBD is right, “that was refreshing” for someone to tell the truth for a change about what Israel is up against and the fact that for once, as ET says, people heard a real speech with real feeling and not vapid ambiguous rhetoric.
    That exchange between Newt and the ABC facilitator definitely improved his standing in my mind.

  48. Surprised you think so highly of perry ET. To me he seems like Ed Stelmach the recently deposed ABPC leader/premier. He has benefitted hugely from the economic fundamentals of Texas – fundamentals that existed before he became governor. And he is from a very conservative state – a state that supports conservative ideas more than the US as a whole – that makes it easy for him to be a conservative politician. Look at how Jindal and christie work conservatism in some of the most democratic states in the country – perry wouldn’t last ten minutes in either of those states. And he is extremely weak on foreign affairs – something that hardcore GOP voters care about a lot.
    That said I do hope he hangs around as i do all of the others as it makes the possibility of a late flurry of entries or a brokered convention that much more likely.

  49. I’m not sure if any republican can win the election. They will get ‘palinized’.
    The only joy I can hope for the next election will be watching Obama get eviscerated in a debate. Newt can do it. Of the people not running, I’m sure Christie would be awesome. Of the rest, I’m sure they’ll do alright, but Newt’s the man.
    Imperfect as he is (imperfect as all candidates are).

  50. ET@8:49
    “The reality is, that Palestinians exist now, as a population, and want their own nation. What’s wrong with that?”
    Whats wrong with that is that the “Palestinian” people were created for the specific purpose of creating a “Palestinian” State, which would be dedicated to the destruction of Israel and in that goal fully backed by the UN.
    That is what is wrong with that ET.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation