Gingrich: Palestinians an ‘invented’ people

[JimBowie1958]

Ironically,

Gingrich, for a decade or so, has been trying to re-invent himself.

Isnt that a central concept to liberalism?

So why are libs condemning Newt for being like them on some things?

This criticism of Newt by the libs is all political character assassination and nothing more.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Can't you imbeciles understand that the Palestinians want to make their homeland INTO a country?

There weren't any American passports 300 years ago either.

Passports only came into existence after WW I.

The Palestinians haven't earned a homeland, and Israel would be crazy to grant them true statehood. They are thugs who kill their own children.

The Israelis have killed more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians.

So what? You have completely ignored the moral dimension of what you assert in order to make a wise-crack.

To kill someone in and of itself is not immoral or bad, but doing it for illegitimate purposes is what makes it wrong. Killing in self defense or unintentionally in the form of collateral damage in a military strike on military targets as part of a uniformed national military force is not necesarily immoral at all.

But to kill innocent people for the purpose of spreading terror while posing as a civilian and in civilian clothing is always in every case an immoral act of unjust violence and is therefore murder.

Libs used to grasp this, but the yhave swallowed their own rhetoric these last couple of decades and have decided the Isrealis are wrong and oppressive simply because they are white people dominating brown people. For the most part such situations have been wrong and oppressive since the end of World War 2.

But reality isnt so simple, and Isreal is fighting a war not of their own choice. Starting in 1948 and since the Palestinians have been attacking the Isrealis at every reasonable opportunity.

Isreal has every right to slaughter them by the thousands as long as the Palestinians continue to initiate these cycles of violence.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There's been a place called PALESTINE much much MUCH longer than there's been a surname called GINGRICH/

One can ONLY conclude from that fact that the name GINGRICH is an invented name and that NO SUCH people really exist

Apples and oranges again when you compare ethnic peoples to a mere family.

Also Newt never said that the Palestinians dont exist; he simply said that as an ethnic group they are 'made up', which is true. Prior to 1948 the Palestinian Arabs were virtually the same as other Arab groups in the area, but after the wars that the Palestinians and their allies have started against Isreal and lost, the situation has changed and they have a very different history and culture from that of other Arabs in the Middle East.

 

[georgephillip]

There's been a place called PALESTINE much much MUCH longer than there's been a surname called GINGRICH/

One can ONLY conclude from that fact that the name GINGRICH is an invented name and that NO SUCH people really exist

Apples and oranges again when you compare ethnic peoples to a mere family.

Also Newt never said that the Palestinians dont exist; he simply said that as an ethnic group they are 'made up', which is true. Prior to 1948 the Palestinian Arabs were virtually the same as other Arab groups in the area, but after the wars that the Palestinians and their allies have started against Isreal and lost, the situation has changed and they have a very different history and culture from that of other Arabs in the Middle East.

Palestinian Arabs were classified as citizens of Palestine by the UN before 1948.
When one-third of their fellow citizens imposed a Jewish State by force of arms upon the majority.

"The resolution (194) accepted the definition of Palestinian refugees as 'persons of Arab origin who, after 29 November 1947, left territory at present under the control of the Israel authorities and who were Palestinian citizens at that date' and; 'Persons of Arab origin who left the said territory after 6 August 1924 and before 29 November 1947 and who at that latter date were Palestinian citizens; 2.

"'Persons of Arab origin who left the territory in question before 6 August 1924 and who, having opted for Palestinian citizenship, retained that citizenship up to 29 November 1947'"[110]

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are genuinely confused about British intentions behind the creation of Israel, Sir Ronald Storrs, the first British Military Governor of Jerusalem, wasn't:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'

"Storrs’ analogy was no accident.

"Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer, and where the devastating effectiveness of using foreign settlers to drive a wedge between the colonial rulers and the colonized made it a template for worldwide imperial rule."

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

 

[Gadawg73]

Can't you imbeciles understand that the Palestinians want to make their homeland INTO a country?

There weren't any American passports 300 years ago either.

Passports only came into existence after WW I.

The Palestinians haven't earned a homeland, and Israel would be crazy to grant them true statehood. They are thugs who kill their own children.

The Israelis have killed more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians.

True and the Palestinians love that. Palestinians set up their command structure and send rockets across the border from schools, hospitals and residential headquarters.
And then they leave the children in the schools instead of evacuating them and pray to Allah that the Isrealis will respond.
And you support folks like that?

 

[georgephillip]

Passports only came into existence after WW I.

The Palestinians haven't earned a homeland, and Israel would be crazy to grant them true statehood. They are thugs who kill their own children.

The Israelis have killed more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians.

True and the Palestinians love that. Palestinians set up their command structure and send rockets across the border from schools, hospitals and residential headquarters.
And then they leave the children in the schools instead of evacuating them and pray to Allah that the Isrealis will respond.
And you support folks like that?

"There is something particularly horrifying when someone is shot in the head.

"Perhaps it’s the gruesome image, the destruction of the brain, the clear intent to kill. The recent shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is made even more nightmarish by the location of her devastating injury.

Those of us who focus on Israel-Palestine are acutely aware of this horror...."

"It is equally tragic to read of nine-year-old Akaber, killed by Israeli gunfire to her head while riding in her uncle’s car to get medical stitches removed, and of the 29 other nine-year-olds killed by Israeli forces in the past decade, eight of them by Israeli gunfire to the head."

There was no fire fight raging when Akaber was murdered in cold blood.

Do you support folks who kill children for sport

Shot in the Head » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[konradv]

'Palestine' was the name the Romans gave what was known prior to that as 'Judea', the Wikipedia link and quote I provided document that.

No, it doesn't prove that at all. All you've demonstrated is that the Romans used the name Palestine. But you've ignored the fact that the name Palestine predates Roman usage. It predates the Kingdom of Judah. "Palestine" is not even a Latin word, which proves that it is not of Roman origin.

Lol, your assertion here is easily proven wrong.

Online Etymology Dictionary

Did you miss this part, maybe?

From your cite:

from Heb. Pelesheth "Philistia, land of the Philistines."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ironically,

Gingrich, for a decade or so, has been trying to re-invent himself.

Isnt that a central concept to liberalism?

So why are libs condemning Newt for being like them on some things?

This criticism of Newt by the libs is all political character assassination and nothing more.

I fail to see why it's supposed to be a negative, sinister thing that people grow and change over time. "Reinvention" is the natural state of human beings, unless something is very, very wrong. I'm certainly not the person I was ten years ago, and I don't even have a significant renewal of my religious faith to point to, like Newt Gingrich does.

I have no problem with looking at the things he's done and the books he's written over that period of time and saying, "This is a man who has learned and grown and become more enlightened", and then moving the **** ON already. Good for him.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that anytime Israel let's her guard down, someone from inside those "occupied" territories starts lobbing rockets or visiting other parts of Israel wearing bombs strapped to their chests?

Gee, do you think that could have anything to do with the fact that every time Palestine lets its guard down, someone from Israel starts burning Palestinian crops, or forcibly removes Palestinians from their homes to set up a Jewish settlement, or the military kills 20 children to get to a single suspected "terrorist."

Let's try dealing with reality.

Well you're failing my friend. You're dealing with a biased and single sided view that has already made its conclusions before the information has been presented, and then reinvents new information in light of the starting biases.

Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza by conquest when they were attacked by their Arab neighbors.

NO! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You start off with bias, and you redefine "facts" to support your bias. Israel declared simultaneously itself independent and grabbed more land that it admitted wasn't its own. Israel's Declaration of Independence was largely predicated on the UN's Partition Plan. But when Israel declared itself a country, it claimed for itself land that belonged to Palestine according to the plan. Israel's very act of coming into existence coincided with an act of illegal war.

But you are all too willing to ignore that and insist that Israel is entitled to those lands, and to forsake any claim of the Palestinians that the land is rightfully theirs. The fact that you insist that Israel has an unquestionable right to claim such territories based on some "spoils of war" theory is equivalent to giving a stamp of approval to Israel to simply start a war based on nothing more than a desire for expansion and to eliminate other countries. And that mentality is exactly why Jordan, Egypt, et al immediately declared war on Israel. Because the same Zionist movement that lead to immigration into Palestine, led to the Jewish terrorism as a means to gain control and eventually declare themselves a state, heavily postulated their position on the same biblical prophesies that would also see a state of Israel eventually conquer Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt too.

As I've said already, Israel's biggest problem is that it refuses to recognize its own offenses. Israel doesn't want to admit its own mistakes, and by doing so insists on keeping old wounds open.

The Arabs lost and as such lost the land.

Palestine lost a war in which they were never involved? Yet again, you twist facts to fit your biases.

That has happened the world over since time began.

And murder has happened the world over since time began. Should we simply accept that it happens and not hold people accountable?

Do you think if any of the Arab aggressors had held land in Israel in 1968 that they would have given it back? Why should Israel give back land that they won in battle?

The Jews have been the aggressor from day one. The very same Jewish "statesmen" who declared Israel a state were active terrorists the day before. But you want to ignore all of that. You want to simply give carte blanche to Israel.

 

[Gadawg73]

Do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that anytime Israel let's her guard down, someone from inside those "occupied" territories starts lobbing rockets or visiting other parts of Israel wearing bombs strapped to their chests?

Gee, do you think that could have anything to do with the fact that every time Palestine lets its guard down, someone from Israel starts burning Palestinian crops, or forcibly removes Palestinians from their homes to set up a Jewish settlement, or the military kills 20 children to get to a single suspected "terrorist."

Let's try dealing with reality.

Well you're failing my friend. You're dealing with a biased and single sided view that has already made its conclusions before the information has been presented, and then reinvents new information in light of the starting biases.



NO! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You start off with bias, and you redefine "facts" to support your bias. Israel declared simultaneously itself independent and grabbed more land that it admitted wasn't its own. Israel's Declaration of Independence was largely predicated on the UN's Partition Plan. But when Israel declared itself a country, it claimed for itself land that belonged to Palestine according to the plan. Israel's very act of coming into existence coincided with an act of illegal war.

But you are all too willing to ignore that and insist that Israel is entitled to those lands, and to forsake any claim of the Palestinians that the land is rightfully theirs. The fact that you insist that Israel has an unquestionable right to claim such territories based on some "spoils of war" theory is equivalent to giving a stamp of approval to Israel to simply start a war based on nothing more than a desire for expansion and to eliminate other countries. And that mentality is exactly why Jordan, Egypt, et al immediately declared war on Israel. Because the same Zionist movement that lead to immigration into Palestine, led to the Jewish terrorism as a means to gain control and eventually declare themselves a state, heavily postulated their position on the same biblical prophesies that would also see a state of Israel eventually conquer Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt too.

As I've said already, Israel's biggest problem is that it refuses to recognize its own offenses. Israel doesn't want to admit its own mistakes, and by doing so insists on keeping old wounds open.



Palestine lost a war in which they were never involved? Yet again, you twist facts to fit your biases.

That has happened the world over since time began.

And murder has happened the world over since time began. Should we simply accept that it happens and not hold people accountable?

Do you think if any of the Arab aggressors had held land in Israel in 1968 that they would have given it back? Why should Israel give back land that they won in battle?

The Jews have been the aggressor from day one. The very same Jewish "statesmen" who declared Israel a state were active terrorists the day before. But you want to ignore all of that. You want to simply give carte blanche to Israel.

You keep claiming bias and labeling others as racist.
Racism is the belief that one's race is superior to another.
You use the word without even knowing the correct definition and only as a bomb thrower.

 

[georgephillip]

Noam Chomsky has been writing about the Arab Peace Plan since 1976.

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange.

"For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.

"In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states.

"Israel refused to attend the session.

"The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980..."

A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won't): In Washington-Speak, "Palestinian State" Means "Fried Chicken"

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, it doesn't prove that at all. All you've demonstrated is that the Romans used the name Palestine. But you've ignored the fact that the name Palestine predates Roman usage. It predates the Kingdom of Judah. "Palestine" is not even a Latin word, which proves that it is not of Roman origin.

Lol, your assertion here is easily proven wrong.

Online Etymology Dictionary[/quote]

CONGRATULATIONS!! YOU JUST PROVED WHAT I SAID!

"Palestine" is not a Latin term. It comes from a Greek term, which comes from a Hebrew term according to your source. All of which long predate the Roman occupation of the area. BTW, the veracity of your online dictionary is suspect at best. Just an FYI...

The greeks had a different pronunciation than the one we have today

Unfounded assertion.

NO ONE called it that from the time of the Romans till the Brits took over.

I guess you're about to really feel stupid when you see this:

9th century

8th century

10th century

12th century

14th century

16th century (actually refers to "Palestinians")

16th century

17th century

18th century

18th century

19th century

19th century

So there is no Palestinian people historically

Yes there is, and I've proved it yet again just now.

and they have nothing genetically to do with the Phillistines or any of that other idiotic crap you have been saying.

Actually, genetic studies indicate that the modern day Palestinians possess stronger ancestral ties times to the prehistoric inhabitants of Palestine than the Jews.

lololololololol, I could have shown this simple FACT earlier, but I wanted to see how stupidly you would deny the obvious, which you have done repeatedly.

You're the one denying the obvious, even denying what your own "evidence" demonstrates.

You have to be the single most arrogant and ignorant poster I have seen at this web site.

So presenting a full assortment of information and expressing a position that is consistent with that data is arrogant and ignorant? Seems to me that you got nothing and have to resort to ad hominems.

Good Lord Almighty, please, give it up, but if you dont, I dont mind humiliating you repeatedly and will camp this thread till the end of time. I dont care how stupid you make yourself look.
lolol

HA! That's rich. If watching you spew outright lies and deliberately ignoring facts that are right in front of your face is what you call humiliating me, well then I don't know what to tell you. And thanks for showing exactly what I've been saying about you to be true. You intend to continue ignoring the facts and regurgitating your lies, lack of knowledge, and general BS until the end of time. You're hellbent on preserving your ideological conclusion, all truth be damned.

 

[Inthemiddle]

[1. Everything you've said here is fals. Saying that ask Arabs are the same people is like saying that the Dutch, Germans, Franks, Slavs, British, etc are all the same people.


2. Just because someone presents facts that interfere with racists views of people who have an irrational hatred for Palestinians does not mean they hate Israel.

Notice I didn't have all the Arab countries listed genus. Genetically the people in that general area, the geographic location of what was once commonly known as "Palestine" Syria, Lebanon, and Jordanian people are more similar genetically. That’s why I say they are all the same people. For the most part Jews are also similar genetically to those people. Jews from Europe are more similar genetically to Jordanians ect.. Then they are to most European peoples

These areas were tribal communities for hundreds of years under the Ottomans and even before that, there were no countries there. The Jews started returning to their ancestral homeland with the Zionist movement, The Arabs also stated to flock to what would become the modern state of Israel because of the jobs. Jewish immigration was limited at times under the British, Arab immigration was not.

So It seems to me that that since all those Arabs in that area are made up of the same people and they already have most of the land, why do they keep wanting more? Let the Jews have their little country, But that’s not what it’s about, most of the muslims want no Jews and they would exterminate all of them if they were able. Got it now genus?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzlzDXWWRdM]Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qub on Jews vs Geert Wilders trial in The Netherlands - YouTube[/ame]

Based on your argument, there is no difference between the Jews and Arabs. They're all one people. Yet, you insist that the Jews should specially be given their own country separate from the rest of the Arab world. I got an idea. Since the Palestinians and Jews can't seem to agree, how about we just divide the whole region up. Part goes to Jordan, part goes to Egypt, part goes to Syria. They're all one people, so it doesn't matter, right? Something tells me you're still not going to be happy with arrangement, even though your argument seems to be that since they're all one people none of them need their own separate country.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I never said it did. Your straw man arguments are pointless and another indication of your ignorance and stupidity. Not to be rude or anything.

Ad hominem and retreat from your arguments noted.

Which has nothing to do with my assertion, doofus.

Ad hominem and retreat from your arguments noted.

It has everything to do with why the Arabs left the Arabian Peninsula, dumbass.

Uh, no. And irrelevant anyway. Religion does not define whether a people exist or not.

Another straw man argument, proving, once again, what ann ignoramus you are.

Ad hominem and retreat from your arguments noted.

I am not surprised that you cannot tolerate God being above you, lol.

Ad hominem noted. What in the world does my religious practices have to do with anything? In case you didn't realize it, this is America, where people are free to worship or not worship as they see fit.

I understand it perfectly but that does not change the simple FACT that the Palestinian Arabs were just another group of Arabs who lived in a different set of provinces, and there was no 'ethnicity' to it till after 1948.

Completely untrue. Palestinians are distinct. Hell, the Cornish are distinct from the rest of Great Britain. The Britanny are distinct from the rest of France. Even the Jews have an assortment of distinct ethnicities from amongst them. The fact that you would insist that all Arabs are one singular ethnicity is absurd and borders on racism. And in reality, if you're going to do that, then you may as well say that there's no difference between Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, and Samaritans.

The vast differences between Assyrians, Arabs and Jews are apparent and simply cannot be considered comparable to the minor differences between th e Arabs of Palestine, Egypt and Syria prior to 1948.

Like..... Oh yeah, not at all.

That is WHAT I SAID, DUMBASS. You were the one who refered to the British ethnic group, not me. lololol

Ad hominem and retreat from your arguments noted.

No, it does not compare at all; apples to oranges to compare the variations of Arabs to the variations of English speaking groups here in the US.

Nope. Just Mid East apples to American apples. We're all apples, you know. Arabs aren't some special alien race of oranges.

The fact that you say that is just astonishingly stupid.

Ad hominem and retreat from your arguments noted.

Bullshit. The Isrealis do not target civilian populations with military force in order to terrorize them if for no other reason that they simply dont need to.

So what do you call the Israeli army forcibly removing Palestinians from their homes to make way for new Jewish settlements? What do you call it when Israeli citizens attack Palestinians for no particular reason? What do you call it when Israeli citizens burn Palestinian houses and farms, and destroy their buildings?

Such rationalizations are used by all hateful people.

No, I'm not hateful at all. I guess you haven't been paying attention. I want Israel to humble itself to recognize its mistakes and be willing to admit them, because only then can they truly sit down with the Palestinians at the table, exchange apologies and forgiveness to move forward productively for both sides, to establish peace.

You, on the other hand, want the hate to continue. You want to say "**** the Palestinians, kill them all, they deserve what they get coming to them."

The simple fact is that the typical Isreali killed by a rocket attack or at a bus stop by a suicide bomber has nothing to do with what these people think are the cause for their greivances.

And that's also true for the typical Palestinian victim. But you don't care about that. Oh wait, lemme guess....The Palestinians are all terrorists, amiright?

But haters dont care and retaliate in their twisted minds against everyone of the enemy group, no matter what their age, sex, or military status.

Yep. Israeli haters do that all the time to Palestinians.

It is pathetic you cant grasp that.

No, I grasp the fact that it's horrible. What you don't grasp is that it's horrible when either side does it. Not just one.

Sure it is, dumbass, because it is refusing to distinguish between the innocent and guilty of those they hate AS A GROUP.

Ad hominem noted. And by your own argument, you must be an anti-Semite, because you're refusing to distinguish between the innocent and guilty of the Palestinians as a group. You just hate them all.

And the politics can change in a good way if the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Gaza would stop teaching their children to hate Isrealis.

Sure, let the Israelis continue to teach their children to hate the Palestinians. That won't be a problem, as long as the Palestinians just do it all.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm proud of the fact the the USA rejected it. Any "settlement" crafted by the Arabs is a raw deal. The Arabs attacks Israel and then promptly they got their asses whipped. They don't get to impose the terms of a "settlement" on anyone.

Noam Chomsky has been writing about the Arab Peace Plan since 1976.

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange.

"For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.

"In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states.

"Israel refused to attend the session.

"The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980..."

A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won't): In Washington-Speak, "Palestinian State" Means "Fried Chicken"

 

[Jroc]

[1. Everything you've said here is fals. Saying that ask Arabs are the same people is like saying that the Dutch, Germans, Franks, Slavs, British, etc are all the same people.


2. Just because someone presents facts that interfere with racists views of people who have an irrational hatred for Palestinians does not mean they hate Israel.

Notice I didn't have all the Arab countries listed genus. Genetically the people in that general area, the geographic location of what was once commonly known as "Palestine" Syria, Lebanon, and Jordanian people are more similar genetically. That’s why I say they are all the same people. For the most part Jews are also similar genetically to those people. Jews from Europe are more similar genetically to Jordanians ect.. Then they are to most European peoples

These areas were tribal communities for hundreds of years under the Ottomans and even before that, there were no countries there. The Jews started returning to their ancestral homeland with the Zionist movement, The Arabs also stated to flock to what would become the modern state of Israel because of the jobs. Jewish immigration was limited at times under the British, Arab immigration was not.

So It seems to me that that since all those Arabs in that area are made up of the same people and they already have most of the land, why do they keep wanting more? Let the Jews have their little country, But that’s not what it’s about, most of the muslims want no Jews and they would exterminate all of them if they were able. Got it now genus?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzlzDXWWRdM]Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qub on Jews vs Geert Wilders trial in The Netherlands - YouTube[/ame]

Based on your argument, there is no difference between the Jews and Arabs. They're all one people. Yet, you insist that the Jews should specially be given their own country separate from the rest of the Arab world. I got an idea. Since the Palestinians and Jews can't seem to agree, how about we just divide the whole region up. Part goes to Jordan, part goes to Egypt, part goes to Syria. They're all one people, so it doesn't matter, right? Something tells me you're still not going to be happy with arrangement, even though your argument seems to be that since they're all one people none of them need their own separate country.

Never said there was "no differance" were did I say that? Jews are Jews, Arabs are Arabs we are cousins and its already been dvivided up.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm proud of the fact the the USA rejected it. Any "settlement" crafted by the Arabs is a raw deal. The Arabs attacks Israel and then promptly they got their asses whipped. They don't get to impose the terms of a "settlement" on anyone.

Noam Chomsky has been writing about the Arab Peace Plan since 1976.

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange.

"For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.

"In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states.

"Israel refused to attend the session.

"The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980..."

A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won't): In Washington-Speak, "Palestinian State" Means "Fried Chicken"

The Arab armies that took defensive positions around the lands partitioned to Arab citizens of Palestine in 1948 are the biggest reason it took Israel two generations to extend control to the Jordan River.

Concentrate real hard and tell me again, what's wrong with one-third of the citizens of 1948 Palestine imposing a Jewish state by force of arms on the majority of their fellow citizens of Palestine?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, it doesn't prove that at all. All you've demonstrated is that the Romans used the name Palestine. But you've ignored the fact that the name Palestine predates Roman usage. It predates the Kingdom of Judah. "Palestine" is not even a Latin word, which proves that it is not of Roman origin.

Lol, your assertion here is easily proven wrong.

Online Etymology Dictionary

Did you miss this part, maybe?

From your cite:

from Heb. Pelesheth "Philistia, land of the Philistines."

Of course I didnt miss it, since I specifically quoted it, Einstein.

My contention has been that the specific name 'Palestine' or 'Palestina' in the latin was first given to the place by the Romans and DERIVED from the name for the Phillistines. And apparently the Greeks had a similar derivation also, but Palestine is specifically the Roman form and was not used by anyone after the Romans till the Brits named their part of the Ottoman lands that between the Mediterrenean and the Jordan River.

So the name 'Palestine' has zip, nada, zero, squelch to do with the Palestinnians of today since they are mostly Arabs who migrated in with the Muslim Conquests about the 7th century AD and did not refer to PAlestine by that name.

Wait: are you being humorous? I dont pick up on sarcasm very well.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ironically,

Gingrich, for a decade or so, has been trying to re-invent himself.

Isnt that a central concept to liberalism?

So why are libs condemning Newt for being like them on some things?

This criticism of Newt by the libs is all political character assassination and nothing more.

I fail to see why it's supposed to be a negative, sinister thing that people grow and change over time. "Reinvention" is the natural state of human beings, unless something is very, very wrong. I'm certainly not the person I was ten years ago, and I don't even have a significant renewal of my religious faith to point to, like Newt Gingrich does.

I have no problem with looking at the things he's done and the books he's written over that period of time and saying, "This is a man who has learned and grown and become more enlightened", and then moving the **** ON already. Good for him.

But then why do people have such a hard time moving on from Romneys flip-flops?

I am leaning toward Gingrich now mostly because he is not trying to slime anyone who might become the GOP nominee. I have lost all respect for Bachman precisely because she has savaged so many good conservatives that are just not the zealot she is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that anytime Israel let's her guard down, someone from inside those "occupied" territories starts lobbing rockets or visiting other parts of Israel wearing bombs strapped to their chests?

Gee, do you think that could have anything to do with the fact that every time Palestine lets its guard down, someone from Israel starts burning Palestinian crops, or forcibly removes Palestinians from their homes to set up a Jewish settlement, or the military kills 20 children to get to a single suspected "terrorist."



Well you're failing my friend. You're dealing with a biased and single sided view that has already made its conclusions before the information has been presented, and then reinvents new information in light of the starting biases.



NO! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You start off with bias, and you redefine "facts" to support your bias. Israel declared simultaneously itself independent and grabbed more land that it admitted wasn't its own. Israel's Declaration of Independence was largely predicated on the UN's Partition Plan. But when Israel declared itself a country, it claimed for itself land that belonged to Palestine according to the plan. Israel's very act of coming into existence coincided with an act of illegal war.

But you are all too willing to ignore that and insist that Israel is entitled to those lands, and to forsake any claim of the Palestinians that the land is rightfully theirs. The fact that you insist that Israel has an unquestionable right to claim such territories based on some "spoils of war" theory is equivalent to giving a stamp of approval to Israel to simply start a war based on nothing more than a desire for expansion and to eliminate other countries. And that mentality is exactly why Jordan, Egypt, et al immediately declared war on Israel. Because the same Zionist movement that lead to immigration into Palestine, led to the Jewish terrorism as a means to gain control and eventually declare themselves a state, heavily postulated their position on the same biblical prophesies that would also see a state of Israel eventually conquer Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt too.

As I've said already, Israel's biggest problem is that it refuses to recognize its own offenses. Israel doesn't want to admit its own mistakes, and by doing so insists on keeping old wounds open.



Palestine lost a war in which they were never involved? Yet again, you twist facts to fit your biases.



And murder has happened the world over since time began. Should we simply accept that it happens and not hold people accountable?

Do you think if any of the Arab aggressors had held land in Israel in 1968 that they would have given it back? Why should Israel give back land that they won in battle?

The Jews have been the aggressor from day one. The very same Jewish "statesmen" who declared Israel a state were active terrorists the day before. But you want to ignore all of that. You want to simply give carte blanche to Israel.

You keep claiming bias and labeling others as racist.
Racism is the belief that one's race is superior to another.
You use the word without even knowing the correct definition and only as a bomb thrower.

He is an idiot.