I have already commented on Newt Gingrich’s comment on the Palestinians and reactions to it in my previous post. However, CAMERA (Gingrich's Comments on Palestinians Strike a Nerve) document some reactions that I would like to comment on.
Typically these stories showcase comments by an "official" Jewish figure. The AP story quoted Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who "sharply criticized Gingrich's comments as cynical attempts to curry support with Jewish voters and unhelpful to the peace process." According to Levin, "Gingrich offered no solutions – just a can of gasoline and a match."
In my previous comments on Glick’s article about the “Gingrich hope” I agreed that the electoral driver for his comments was electoral. However, Levin’s comment, typical of the Western liberal left , reveals two common flaws. First, it is not the truth of Gingrich’s comment that has been for decades “unhelpful to the peace process”. Quite the contrary: it was precisely the failure by Israel and the West to insist on this truth in the face of Arab lies that has defeated the so-called peace process (see below).
Second, Levin reveals one of the main factors behind the West acquiescence to Arab lies: fear from Arab violence and the failure to realize that appeasing bullies will work against, not for peace. The West is simply afraid of and cowed by Jihad.
AP threw in Israeli writer Tom Segev, a critic of Israeli policy, who stated, "There is no intelligent person today who argues about the existence of the Palestinian people." Segev also offered, "I don't think the Palestinians are less of a nation than the Americans."
But, as all intelligent commenters have argued, the issue is not the existence of a Palestinian people today (even though history and analysis raise serious doubts). Rather, as Barry Rubin states, it is whether they have valid claims to the lands they accuse Israel of occuppying, let alone Israel proper. They don’t. Incidentally, Israel has already accepted a Palestinian nation, despite the doubts, while the Arabs has not accepted the existence of the Jewish nation, which cannot be questioned in any way.
The New York Times turned to former United States ambassador to Israel, Martin S. Indyk, a critic of the Israeli government, who said "that if Mr. Gingrich believed that Palestinians did not have a right to an independent state 'as implied in his language, then he’s not pro-Israel at all.'"
Indyk is what I call a “peace process fundamentalist”, one of those whose vesting in the process blinds to failure. Despite overwhelming evidence that the process kept failing abysmally, peace-processors cannot bring themselves to accept that they belabored under an illusion and thus were doomed to fail. They adhere to the false notion of the conflict as one of competing nationalistic objectives and persist to this day in the denial, despite overwhelming evidence, of its core foundation: Arab murderous intentions and threacherous behavior. It is simply logically impossible to achieve peace by accepting and supporting rejectionism of and genocidal terror by Palestinians, while pressuring Israel for weakening concessions that endanger its existence, without any reciprocation.
Al Jazeera took it a step further. A spokesman for the American Task Force on Palestine, Hussein Ibish is quoted as stating, "There was no Israel and no such thing as an "Israeli people" before 1948."
I referenced intelligent responses to this, but what I will emphasize is that whichever way you define a people as the basis for a nation, the Jewish people and the nation of Israel precedes not just the Palestinians by thousands of years, but also many of those who are today denying Jews a national home. (Which were more of a nation: the American indians or the Europeans who came here and occupied their land in much more murderous manner? Are they gonna give it back?)
The most vitriolic responses of all came from commenters responding to a report in The Financial Times of London. Gingrich's comments set off a surge of accusations in the paper's talkback over the supposed influence of the Jewish Lobby and alleging pseudo-scientific theories about the non-Middle Eastern ancestry of Jews. Gingrich was disparaged as "a pathetic excuse for a human being." If these commenters accurately represent the paper's readers, the FT caters to a passionately judeophobic crowd.
Hardly surprising, given that the UK is one of the most anti-Semitic countries and has been so since its Mandate days, when it did everything in its power to deny the Jews their state. These are the people who accuse the Jews of racism.
The Guardian cast Gingrich as irresponsible. It's lede stated, “ Palestinian officials say Republican frontrunner's claim children are taught to kill in textbooks is based on Israeli propaganda.”
It is Israel propaganda only because the West has been constantly ignoring and often whitewashing the Palestinian instilling hatred and murder of Jews since kindergarten, proof of which is readily available in the Palestinian media, profusely translated in English and available to anybody who does not close eyes to it.
It is ironic and certainly dispiriting to see all those who criticize Gingrich for telling the truth resorting to readily demonstrable lies. If you want to know why the West is going down the drain, that’s one part of the explanation.