It Looks Like Gingrich got it Right

Yesterday, Newt Gingrich said this during an interview:

"I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state. Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, who are historically part of the Arab community."

Gingrich also went on to say: "And they [the Palestinians] had a chance to go many places and for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s. I think it's tragic."

The uproar that this comment caused has been substantial. Before looking at the response to Newt, let's first look at the validity of what he said. The simple truth is that Gingrich is factually correct. Five hundred years ago, all of the land which is now Israel or the Palestinian territories were Turkish, i.e, part of the Ottoman Empire. The area was part of the Syrian province of that empire. There was no Palestine or Palestinian people. This remained the case until the end of World War One. In 1919, the League of Nations awarded control of the area to the United Kingdom. Britain governed the area along with modern day Jordan and Egypt. Again, during this period, there was no separate Palestinian nationality.

In 1947, after World War Two, the United Nations voted for the partition of the area into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. One May 15th of 1948, the British withdrew from the area in accordance with the UN Resolution. Israel was born that day and simultaneously Israel was attacked by the countries surrounding it: Egypt, Trans Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Some Saudi forces also joined in the attack. Israel managed to succeed in defending itself and in 1949, an armistice was declared. The Israelis actually gained some territory compared to the lands that they were to receive under the UN resolution, but they also lost some key areas. The most important of these loses was the city of Jerusalem. Under the UN resolution, Jerusalem was to be an international city, but the armistice saw it under total control of the Jordanians.

During the fighting and in the period after it ended, there were huge numbers of refugees who had fled their homes who needed to be resettled. Israel took in about 1.5 million Jewish refugees from Arab areas of Palestine and the surrounding countries. These folks were integrated into Israel as citizens and formed a substantial part of the population. The Arab refugees, however, were not integrated into the population of the surrounding countries. Instead, the Arab countries forced these refugees into camps and kept them segregated from the rest of the population. Large refugee camps were built particularly in Lebanon and Jordan.

Even after the armistice, there was no Palestinian state. The Gaza Strip was occupied and ruled by Egypt. The West Bank was occupied and ruled by Jordan.

In 1967, Israel won the Six Day War, and it took control at that time of the entirety of the area. That brings us to today. So Gingrich is correct; there never was Palestine as a state and there was no separate Palestinian people. Both are modern constructs without any basis in history. Indeed, had the Arab countries welcomed the refugees in 1949 in the same way that Israel welcomed Jesish refugees ousted from the Arab lands, there probably would be no major dispute between Israel and the Palestinians today.

Now let's look at the response to what Gingrich said. Saeb Erakat, the chief Palestinian "negotiator" said Gingrich's remarks "the most racist statement I've ever seen." Erakat went on to say, "such thinking should be an alarm and concern for the world."

The Palestinians were not alone in their criticism. Mitt Romney's campaign trotted out a spokesman to sound the alarm. "I'm not sure that kind of statement gets us any closer to accomplishing an agenda," said Mary Kramer, former U.S. Ambassador to Barbados and Romney surrogate.

The reality is that Gingrich really struck a nerve with the Palestinians. Telling the truth is now "racist". Indeed, the truth is cause for "alarm and concern for the world". These are views that fit right in with the Obama style diplomacy currently practiced by the USA; the truth is just not important. Just last week Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta blamed Israel for not negotiating with the Palestinians when it is the Palestinians who refuse the negotiations. This fits well with the general methods of the Palestinian Authority; they are the poor victims and Israel is always the aggressor, no matter what happens. No wonder the prospect of an American leader who both knows that truth and is prepared to say that truth is so terrifying to the Palestinian leaders.

The statement from the Romney camp is just as revealing. The Romney forces tell us that "that kind of statement" does not get us "closer to accomplishing an agenda". Let me translate: Romney is saying that telling the truth will not help resolve the problem. It is the victory for the Obama/Clinton style of diplomacy. Romney accepts this idea that truth does not matter.

Well, guess what! The truth does matter! America should not become a willing collaborator with any international group that wants to perpetuate a lie. We are fighting a War on Terrorism, not participating in overseas contingency operations. The enemy are radical Islamic terrorists and that truth needs to be clear. The attack at Fort Hood by Major Hassan was a terror attack and not "workplace violence" as the Obama administration characterized it. If American does not recognize the truth about world events, it will never be able to deal successfully with them.

In short, the remarks by Gingrich were both accurate and important. The Romney response was also instructive. The Palestinian response, however, was the most important; they well know that their chances for success depend on perpetuating a lie to a world willing to go along with that lie in the hopes of peace. Were the president of the United States to stand for truth, it would be a disaster from which these Palestinian leaders could not recover.

Gingrich deserves congratulations for what he said!

UPDATE: Since I wrote this post, I came across the response of Hamas to Gingrich's statement. Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said the Gingrich remarks "were grave comments that represented an incitement for ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians."

There you have it. Hamas, a group that indiscriminately kills Israelis with terror attacks as well as with missile attacks launched from Gaza condemns a true statement by Gingrich about history as an "incitement for ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians." It is these kinds of lies and distortions that the Obama/Clinton foreign policy would let stand in the name of achieving an agenda. Romney makes clear he agrees with the Obama/Clinton approach.