Gingrich on Israel - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 12-13-2011, 08:28 PM

Gingrich's recent comments on Palestinians are despicable and are prime evidence of why New "The Historian" Gingrich is not fit to be president.

I hate how awful people like Gingrich wrap themselves up in Reagan to justify their positions.

Makes me want to vote for Paul.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-sm...st-107334.html

Tex · 12-13-2011, 09:18 PM

Are you referring to his comment that the Palestinians are an "invented people"?

MikeWaters · 12-13-2011, 09:39 PM

Yes.

Tex · 12-14-2011, 03:41 PM

And it's despicable because he believes it? or because he said it out loud?

MikeWaters · 12-14-2011, 06:29 PM

It's the equivalent to "Israel has no right to exist."

What right does any nation have to exist? Especially where there has never been one, or has not been one for hundreds/thousands of years.

But Israel does exist, whether you believe the UN mandate was a fundamental "right" or not. And it's not helpful to say that it doesn't have the right to exist. It's counterproductive when the aim is peace. The implication of saying Israel has no right to exist is that it should be destroyed.

Same thing with the Historian's statement. As Romney says, it's bomb-throwing. The implication is that the Palestinians have no claim, no rights, no hope for self-rule.

Romney is hardly better on the whole Israel/Palestine issue, as he is more than willing to write a black check for Israel and pander to the nth degree.

I forget what article it was that I read, but it summarized the alternatives to a two-state solution very well:
1) incorporating permanently the occupied territories into Israel and never granting Palestinians full citizenship or rights. This is called apartheid.
2) incorporating occupied territories and removing Palestinians from it. This is called ethnic cleansing.
3) incorporating occupied territories and giving full citizenship rights to Palestinians. (actually what I favor).

Which one do you want, Mr. Netanyahu>

Tex · 12-14-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's the equivalent to "Israel has no right to exist."

What right does any nation have to exist? Especially where there has never been one, or has not been one for hundreds/thousands of years.

But Israel does exist, whether you believe the UN mandate was a fundamental "right" or not. And it's not helpful to say that it doesn't have the right to exist. It's counterproductive when the aim is peace. The implication of saying Israel has no right to exist is that it should be destroyed.

Same thing with the Historian's statement. As Romney says, it's bomb-throwing. The implication is that the Palestinians have no claim, no rights, no hope for self-rule.

I agree that it's incendiary, and Romney and Santorum had it right that a president should avoid language that makes the situation harder than it already is.

But Newt is also correct.

MikeWaters · 01-18-2012, 01:17 AM

So now we know why Newt made this incendiary statement.

No, he was not speaking as a historian. No, he was not speaking the plain truth.

He was signaling to Adelson. We now read that Adelson was rethinking giving any money to a Gingrich Super-PAC until this moment. Other folks had been trying to talk him out of it once the news went out that he might spend $20 million. Then Gingrich made this statement, and Adelson made his decision to give the money.

Also, we read earlier this week that Gingrich was rumored to possibly be making a trip to Israel this week. THIS WEEK! THE MOST IMPORTANT WEEK OF THE CAMPAIGN!!

I think it's pretty obvious why. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

At some point we may actually see promises of war based on promises of campaign money.

I could never support Gingrich to be commander in chief. I trust Obama far more than him.

12-13-2011, 08:28 PM	#1
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Gingrich on Israel Gingrich's recent comments on Palestinians are despicable and are prime evidence of why New "The Historian" Gingrich is not fit to be president. I hate how awful people like Gingrich wrap themselves up in Reagan to justify their positions. Makes me want to vote for Paul. http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-sm...st-107334.html

12-13-2011, 09:18 PM	#2
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	Are you referring to his comment that the Palestinians are an "invented people"? __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

12-14-2011, 03:41 PM	#4
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	And it's despicable because he believes it? or because he said it out loud? __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

12-14-2011, 06:29 PM	#5
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	It's the equivalent to "Israel has no right to exist." What right does any nation have to exist? Especially where there has never been one, or has not been one for hundreds/thousands of years. But Israel does exist, whether you believe the UN mandate was a fundamental "right" or not. And it's not helpful to say that it doesn't have the right to exist. It's counterproductive when the aim is peace. The implication of saying Israel has no right to exist is that it should be destroyed. Same thing with the Historian's statement. As Romney says, it's bomb-throwing. The implication is that the Palestinians have no claim, no rights, no hope for self-rule. Romney is hardly better on the whole Israel/Palestine issue, as he is more than willing to write a black check for Israel and pander to the nth degree. I forget what article it was that I read, but it summarized the alternatives to a two-state solution very well: 1) incorporating permanently the occupied territories into Israel and never granting Palestinians full citizenship or rights. This is called apartheid. 2) incorporating occupied territories and removing Palestinians from it. This is called ethnic cleansing. 3) incorporating occupied territories and giving full citizenship rights to Palestinians. (actually what I favor). Which one do you want, Mr. Netanyahu> Last edited by MikeWaters; 12-14-2011 at 06:37 PM.

12-13-2011, 09:39 PM	#3
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Yes.

01-18-2012, 01:17 AM	#7
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	So now we know why Newt made this incendiary statement. No, he was not speaking as a historian. No, he was not speaking the plain truth. He was signaling to Adelson. We now read that Adelson was rethinking giving any money to a Gingrich Super-PAC until this moment. Other folks had been trying to talk him out of it once the news went out that he might spend $20 million. Then Gingrich made this statement, and Adelson made his decision to give the money. Also, we read earlier this week that Gingrich was rumored to possibly be making a trip to Israel this week. THIS WEEK! THE MOST IMPORTANT WEEK OF THE CAMPAIGN!! I think it's pretty obvious why. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... At some point we may actually see promises of war based on promises of campaign money. I could never support Gingrich to be commander in chief. I trust Obama far more than him.