I was told that Newt Gingrich, Republican candidate for president of the United States, is a historian with an educational background stronger than most of the members of the U.S. Congress and Senate. If this is true, his statements during an interview on The Jewish Channel — that the Palestinians are an “invented” people and that the 1967 borders are not defensible — raise suspicions that he is ignorant of history and politically shallown.
According to Gingrich, there has never been a Palestinian state and Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire until the British occupation. The United States of America was also not a nation before 1779 but a colony of the British Empire in North America. Does this mean that the residents of these territories weren’t allowed to found their own independent state? The same can be said of a dozen other states founded during the second half of the last century by people who were part of vast empires, like the British, French or even the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was also the right of citizens of the former Czechoslovakia to divide into two states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, according to territorial divisions. It is indeed the responsibility of a territory to determine what is true about its citizens, whether they describe themselves as a people connected to the territory or as part of a larger population.
Palestine is an old name that dates back to Roman times, and it is quite clear that the residents of this region are allowed to define themselves as “Palestinians.” As such, they can decide if they want to be part of an Arab country or have an independent state that maintains cultural and religious ties and affinities to the great Arab nation.
How can Mr. Gingrich claim that Palestinians and the Palestinian state are “invented”? On Nov. 29, 1947, the United States’ representative [to the United Nations], along with most countries of the free world and the Soviet bloc, voted in favor of partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish state is now called Israel, and the Arab one that was to rise would be called Palestine. How can Newt Gingrich, running for president of the United States, assert that this decision is not valid or is an invention?
Gingrich’s superficiality becomes more apparent when he claims that the borders of 1967 are not defensible. If he had studied the maps of Israel or Palestine better, he would have seen that the size of the future Palestinian state, known as the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, is 60 kilometers long according to the 1967 borders. If Israel pushed its borders 10 kilometers east, could it protect itself better from artillery and missiles shots? Perhaps Israel’s defense depends on the annexation of several square kilometers of Palestinian territory, where Israel is now cramming Jewish settlers? Or does it depend primarily on a relationship based on peace and trust that could be established with the Palestinians and the demilitarization of offensive weapons in their territory under strict international control?
Even if Mr. Gingrich denies the creation of a Palestinian state, what is his opinion on the millions of Palestinians who live in Judea and Samaria? Can someone who grew up with his country’s democratic values let millions of other people be deprived of civil and voting rights in their own mother country, as they are today?
When one of the main candidates for the U.S. presidency makes such irresponsible declarations to attract voters from the Jewish community (who mostly support Democrats), it helps explain why it is difficult to hope that the U.S. could really lead the peace process in the Middle East; in light of this, it is easy to believe that Europe’s role as the leader in this process becomes increasingly crucial and necessary.
If anyone thinks the U.S. ought to lead any peace processes anywhere at all demonstrates an alarming lack of perception on both historical points and everyday current affairs. U.S. leadership seems to rely quite confidently on the ignorance of its constituency on all matters historic, and with good reason. With fewer citizens than ever proceeding beyond high school history courses, it is demonstrable that most U.S. citizens know virtually nothing about their own country’s policies. The U.S. has been practicing war in the Middle East for some 10 or 20 years now, depending on how one counts. Gingrich refuses to acknowledge the grievances of the Palestinians, let alone their validity as a state. His comments would indicate a laughable ignorance of history if they weren’t suspiciously tilted toward Neocon ideology of resource control through symbiotic skulduggery involving Israel in the region. Though i will stop short of enumerating reciprocal bad behavior on the part of both Israeli and Palestinian players, as well as others in the region, i will say plainly that Gingrich is hardly a man to look to for clarity. It’s hardly uncommon in politics anywhere but Gingrich is an unrepentant liar, likely with the clear strategic mindset that lies never leave consciousness untainted. He has lied in recent days on federal budget, energy, health care, immigration, terrorism, and even personal relationships. No one at all in any country should trust him for any reason. I wouldn’t even take a check from the guy. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/factchecking-gingrich/