Gingrich Gets It Right

In an interview on 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.

  • Theodore805

    I accept Mr. Horowitz's conclusion that Newt is correct about the name "Palestine." As a Catholic, I conclude that Newt is correct about Pope John Paul II's political genius.

  • Queen Esther

    Very well said, David! Thank you and thank Gingrich for setting the world straight. Very refreshing! Am Yisrael Chai – Long live Israel..

  • John_Kelly

    Great story David and once again you have highlighted a profound truth that must be shouted from the rooftops.

    We are living in the most critical time in recorded history and if ever there is a time for men and women of courage to rise up it is NOW. Tomorrow will be to late.

    To David Horowitz and the team at Front Magazine keep up the great work as your voice needs to be heard in every nation.

  • StephenD

    My prayer is that Gingrich sticks to his guns with this. It is almost comical except it is only too real, seeing the pundits on television critique his statement as "over the top" or "Blundering" or "Absurd" as if there is no truth to what he has said and by saying it shows he is out of touch and cannot be taken seriously. I would that all nay Sayers (including those running against him) have the opportunity to review all the facts and that I can be there when they are forced to eat that humble pie.

  • visitor

    Going back a couple of hundred years or so, Professor Gingrich could just as well have said there is no such thing as an Italian people or a German people or, for that matter, an American people. One need not like the Palestinians (I don't much) to recognize that they have emerged as a distinct nationality. It is an irony of history that their nationalism emerged as a result of and in response to the rise of secular Jewish nationalism (i.e., Zionism, which is the national liberation movement of the the Jewish people). There were those (Stalin, for example) who denied the national identity of the Jews in much the same way that Newt denies that of the Palestinians. Not much is accomplished by this posturing and frankly pandering.

    • ziontruth

      "Going back a couple of hundred years or so, Professor Gingrich could just as well have said there is no such thing as an Italian people or a German people…"

      He could, but the Italians and Germans could have countered him with positive characteristics that show how there is an Italian people and a German people. The Arab settler-colonists in Palestine pretending to be a people have nothing positive to mark them off as a nation in its own right.

      "One need not like the Palestinians (I don't much) to recognize that they have emerged as a distinct nationality."

      They haven't. It's still all about marketing: The Arab colonial land-thieves in Palestine portray themselves as a "stateless nation resisting the yoke of a cruel oppressor" in order to sell it to the world, because the previous truthful image of a host of Arab states wishing to rob the Jewish nation of their one and only tiny piece of land in the world wasn't received so well in world opinion.

      "There were those (Stalin, for example) who denied the national identity of the Jews in much the same way that Newt denies that of the Palestinians."

      Analogies only clarify, they don't settle an argument. Stalin was wrong because the Jews are a nation, and they can prove it with positive characteristics. Newt is right because the Arab imperialist land-grabbers in Palestine are not a nation, and if asked to prove their nationhood with positive characteristics they simply can't.

      "Not much is accomplished by this posturing and frankly pandering."

      I have no idea what Newt's motivation was with his remarks. Whatever his reasons, they're truthful, and that's the main thing. After years of clouding the issue, finally we're back to the real heart of this conflict.

  • FriendofGaryCooper

    Palestinian nationalism? Where is it? When Israel evacuated the Gaza strip in October
    2005, the Palestinians in Gaza had the chance to prove they could become a nation, and govern themselves. Instead, what happened? The first thing they did was destroy the greenhouses that the Jews left behind; which were purchased at a cost of $14 million by the American Jewish community, to be turned over to authorities in Gaza. The Palestinian Legislative council presumably rules Gaza, but it is simply a rubber stamp for Hamas; not
    surprising since 70% of its members are from Hamas. Does Gaza produce anything? (Other than rockets to shoot at Israel) Does Gaza have a GDP? This isn't a true democracy. Yes, Gazans are suffering; but this isn't Israel's fault. Visitor, look at the facts.

  • visitor

    Here are the options for what to do with the Palestinian Arabs and the areas where they live:

    1. Annex their areas and make them citizens of Israel (result: no Jewish state of Israel).
    2. Annex their areas and do not make them citizens (result: no democratic state of Israel)
    3. Annex their areas and deport them (result: isolation of Israel and endless warfare).
    4. Annex their areas and exterminate them (result: a final solution if we become Nazis).
    5. Get a divorce: two states for two peoples (result: a democratic Jewish state of Israel and whatever the Palestinians come up with, probably yet another fascist kleptocracy).

    Given security guarantees, most Israelis I know would choose the fifth option as being the least unsatisfactory. Newt is more Catholic than the Pope on this, which is why I call it pandering.

    • ziontruth

      Option 1 means, as you say, the end of Israel as a Jewish State and sanctuary for the Jewish nation.

      Option 2 is apartheid, which is unsustainable because it will eventually lead to guerrilla warfare, which in turn is always a losing proposition.

      Option 3 is what the Torah calls the Jewish nation to do and what will have to be done one day, regardless of the momentary cost. Isolation is the Jewish nation's lot until HaShem says otherwise, and warfare is what the Muslims want anyway.

      Option 4 is against Jewish Law. The Arabs aren't Canaanites; they are only to be expelled, not to be exterminated.

      Option 5 fails because the Arab imperialists want to rob the Jews of all their territorial holdings, not just the post-1967 ones. Even if an Arab settler state on the post-1967 territories could somehow live in peace with pre-1967 Jewish Israel (highly doubtful), the Arab colonists within pre-1967 Israel would agitate to dissolve the Jewishness of the state through appeals to "multiculturalism" and "anti-racism." In other words, following the acquisition of the post-1967 lands through the Algerian model, the pre-1967 would fall under attack through the Lebanese model.

      "Given security guarantees, most Israelis I know would choose the fifth option as being the least unsatisfactory."

      After August 2005 (the debacle of the expulsion of all Jews from the Gaza region, followed not by peace but by intensified rocket fire), the opinion of Israeli Jews has largely shifted away from any kind of land concessions. Granted, option 3 may not yet be a majority opinion among them, but it's no longer anathema either.

  • visitor

    I suppose it is comforting that you know HaShem's will so clearly. Some haredim believe devoutly that Galut is HaShem's punishment for our sins and we should await the coming of Moshiach before setting up a Third Commonwealth. They also claim to know HaShem's will. The rest of us will just have to muddle through somehow. Kahane's dream, which you espouse, would be a nightmare for Israel and world Jewry.

    • reader

      I don't suppose that you believe that HaShem means for us to engage in self-delusion, do you?

      • visitor

        I don't. Pretending the Palestinians either don't exist or can all be deported and then we'll have peace, this to me is self-delusion on a grand scale. I'd like them to build their own decent society — or, if they prefer, they can fester and rot in their own hatred — but in either case, they can do it on the other side of a well-defined border. I don't think we can (or should) rule over them, deport them, or exterminate them. I do think we can divorce them.

        • reader

          The point exactly is that neither they display any desire or capacity to build decent society, not they display any desire to rot in their own hatred. They are bent on killing and chasing the Jews out. At this day and age to believe in anything otherwise is a delusion. Yes, one has to be careful how to act on this reality, but reality it is and it has to be recognized as such and it has to be articulated as such.

        • ziontruth

          "Pretending the [Arab colonists] either don't exist or can all be deported and then we'll have peace, this to me is self-delusion on a grand scale."

          No, the self-delusion is pretending Israel's enemies intend anything less than genocide. They say so, they act accordingly, I say it's time to take them seriously.

          Mass expulsion isn't pleasant, I agree. Genocide, however, is even less pleasant. What does it tell you that the Sudetenland in 1938 was almost a casus belli, but from 1945 until now, ever since all the Germans were expelled from there, it hasn't been in the news a single day? Ethnic cleansing is the kinder alternative to genocide. And the Torah enjoins it (Numbers 33:50–53), so the argument that it's against Jewish values is false too.

    • ziontruth

      "Some haredim believe devoutly that Galut is HaShem's punishment for our sins…"

      All Orthodox Jewish believers agree with that, actually. But, in like manner, all Orthodox Jewish believers agree that punishment has to end sometime.

      "…and we should await the coming of Moshiach before setting up a Third Commonwealth."

      The oath of the Galut was a bilateral one in which the Jews swore not to try to renew their political sovereignty in the Land of Israel and the non-Jews in turn swore not to oppress the Jews in exile too much. How much is that "too much" is open to interpretation, but by the 17th century in both Yemen (after the Mawza Decrees, which decimated the Jews of Yemen) and Poland (after the Cossack Rebellion, which did the same for the Jews of Poland), mainstream rabbinical opinion began to seriously mull the idea of renewing Jewish sovereignty, having seen clearly that the non-Jews weren't living up to their side of the oath. After the Holocaust the question should no longer be raised at all. The Neturei Karta quislings are motivated primarily by their desire to be praised by the world, as evidenced by their marching alongside the worst of Jew-haters.

      "Kahane's dream,…"

      …is nothing but a straightforward exposition of Jewish Law. You read Maimonides on Jewish statecraft, you see just the same.

  • Felipe Zapata

    Newt is the man.

  • Attila The Hun

    Thank you Newt
    It is time to start debunking the entire Palestinians narrative.

  • coryphee

    The problem wasn't that Newt was inaccurate, its that he used rhetoric that undermined even his own position on the issue — which is that there should be a two-state solution with a Palestinian state; a state which represents the Palestinian people.

    I think the more direct way of saying what he wanted to would be "The charge that Israel is 'occupying' the Palestinian state is wrong, because the people who call themselves Palestinians never had a state to begin with."

    But how can you argue that there should be a Palestinian state in the future, while still calling the Palestinian people "invented"? Either they're a people and should have a state, or they're not a people and shouldn't have a state.

  • LindaRivera

    Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque were NEVER considered important by Muslims.

    From 1948-1967, when Jordan invaded and illegally occupied
    Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem, Jordanian radio broadcast Friday prayers not
    from Al-Aqsa Mosque, but from a mosque in Amman, Jordan.
    No foreign Arab leader
    visited Jerusalem during the nineteen years Jordan controlled and occupied east Jerusalem.

  • LindaRivera

    Gingrich told the TRUTH!
    Gingrich also told the truth when he
    declared the Muslim goal is to destroy Israel. This means not one inch
    of Israel can ever be given to barbaric enemies bent on Jewish genocide.

    * PLO Leader: The Palestinian People Does NOT Exist – March 31, 1977

    PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein: “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 – Dutch newspaper

  • LindaRivera

    Every inch of the Golan, Gaza, Judea, Samaria, ALL Israel is Jewish land.

    In all of history, Jerusalem/Temple Mount was NEVER a Holy Place for Muslims:

    13th Century Arab biographer Yakut noted: "Mecca is holy to Muslims;
    Jerusalem is holy to the Jews."

    The conquest of Jerusalem and
    all Israel is a major goal of global jihad. The Muslim claim that the Temple
    Mount is their third holy place is LIES and deception.
    The PLO's Palestinian National Covenant of 1964, does not mention Jerusalem even once.
    Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times in the Jewish Bible. Not once in the
    Koran. At the time of Mohammad's death, there was not a single mosque in

  • Nakba1948

    What a case of astonishing racism, though coming from Gingrich and the neocons on this website, it isn't a surprise. If you want to talk about "invented people," let's talk about the Khazars who masquerade as Semites and claim to be the original inhabitants of Palestine. My family lived in Palestine for hundreds of years before these imperialists showed up on the scene. What gives an Jew the right to settle permanently in "Israel" when my family can't even return to their ancestral homeland?

    • reader

      Thanks for showing up here and demonstrating the Jewish mash how silly their delusion of coexistence is. I'm surprised that you haven't asked what gives the right to the Jewish Temple to had been built in Jerusalem thousands of years ago.

    • ziontruth

      "What a case of astonishing racism,… let's talk about the Khazars…"

      There goes another irony meter to the big scrap-heap.

      "My family lived in Palestine for hundreds of years…"

      Assuming yours is among the few Arab families that can actually trace their presence on Palestine further back than 1800. Very few can, and so can a few Jewish families in Israel today. From the point of view of the date of arrival, Jews and Arabs in Palestine are pretty much in the same boat. Not much integrity in condemning a Jewish family that came from Europe in the 1930s when there are many Arab families that came from Egypt and Syria at the same time.

      No, the more pertinent question is who has an authentic connection to this land of all lands in particular. The verdict on this is clear: Those who speak dialects of Arabic on a continuum little affected by the present-borders, listen to the same kind of music as in all the Arab world, have traditional clothes that are of the same kind as in the rest of the Levant, are no less racially diverse than the Jews they hate and above all never called themselves anything distinct before 1948—those are in no position to set their claim above the ones whose language is particular to this land, whose calendar and festivals are particular to this land, whose texts and other cultural artifacts are inextricably tied to this land and none other, and who have always seen themselves, even in the thick of the exile in the Diaspora, as natives of this land, and whose national consciousness stretches back almost 3000 years.

      Push off, Arab settler-colonist land-thief. Get off the land of the one and only true Palestinian nation, the Jewish nation.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      What a case of astonishing racism, though coming from Gingrich and the neocons on this website, it isn't a surprise.

      Racism? Besides Israel the Islamic world is also waging permanent jihads of conquest against various unbelievers around the world in Kashmir, Jammu, India, the Philippines, Chechnya, Russia, Cote D'Ivoire, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

      In addition, the Islamic world is also waging a non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad against the West via mass Muslim immigration for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest. As Muslims never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme.

      Thus, out of all the numerous jihads of conquest being waged around the world simultaneously against non-Muslim unbelievers, you single out only the permanent jihad of conquest being waged perpetually against the Jewish unbelievers in Israel to incite hatred and violence against in order to facilitate another mass genocidal holocaust of Jews, and you have the audacity to call Newt a racist? Moonbat, don't look now, but you happen to be one of the biggest Jew hating anti-Semitic bigots on the planet and one of the most mentally handicapped morons in the world at the same time.

      Meanwhile, at the same time you incite hatred and violence against Israel to help facilitate another mass genocidal holocaust of Jews, Christians and all non-Muslim unbelievers living throughout the Islamic world as second-class dhimmi citizens are violently oppressed and systematically persecuted when not outright slaughtered altogether. Loon, your obsession with hating Jews has rendered you into little more than an anti-Semitic bigot and extremely gullible useful idiot.

  • PAthena

    David Horowitz has it right – the "Palestine Liberation Organization" was founded in 1964 by Nasser, ruler of Egypt, and the Soviet Union in Cairo. From that came the phony history and propaganda of calling Arabs "Palestinians," for "Palestinian" had been synonymous with "Jew" from the time the Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed Judea "Palestine" in order to eradicate all memory of Judea and the Jews in 135 A.D. after he had defeated the last Jewish rebellion under Bar Kochba. That is why the British Palestine Mandate after World War I was to be for the "homeland of the Jews."

  • Edward Powell

    Newt is right, but he did not see the issue through far enough. Invented, for what? The Palestinians are an invented people. But so were the Americans. It took the colonists less time to invent America than it did the Arabs to invent Palestine. The other similarity between the two "invented" peoples is that they were both invented on strong philosophical premises. America was invented on the premise of freedom and individual rights. Palestine was invented on the premises of Jew-hatred, mass murder, and terrorism. America was, in it's original founding principles, the most moral country ever invented. Palestine, similarly, is the most immoral country ever invented. As neat a pair of opposites as you'll ever find. Now say *that* in an interview and I'll be impressed.

    • ziontruth

      "The Palestinians are an invented people. But so were the Americans."

      I disagree. The American colonists took a long time until they even started to think about the issue. Initially, American particularism was about implementing the ideals of the 18th-century Enlightenment; American nationalism came later. Some might argue it didn't become full-blown until after World War One, though I'm not that extreme.

      The faux-Palestinian nation is truly invented—a purposeful construct made in malicious intent. The American nation differs from, say, the ethnic nations of Europe in being a proposition nation—one where residence on the land makes you a nation instead of the other way round, entitlement to residence on the land being dependent on belonging to the nation. However, being a proposition nation does not equal being an invented nation. Both a proposition nation and an ethnic nation are the product of gradual evolution, while invented nations such as the faux-Palestinians and the various "nations" in post-colonial Africa are creations by human fiat, usually in opposition to another force.

  • Seth

    I love abortions and gay people. :)