Newt Gingrich, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You

Liberals, the Palestinians, and people trafficking in political correctness have been going bonkers over Newt describing the Palestinians as an invented people.  I love it.

There are several ways to look at this remark.  Historically, it is of course valid.  Palestine was an area whose name was given to it by the Romans.  It was a corner of the Ottoman empire.  At the time of the creation of the State of Israel, it was a simply a land mass over which Jordan and Egypt laid claim.  There was no Palestinian entity to challenge the claims of the Jordanians or the Egyptians.  Indeed, Arabs living in Palestine supported the claims of the Jordanians and the Egyptians.   In short, Palestinians, as a political entity, were entirely absent and had to be subsequently invented.

Nevertheless, invented or not, the claims of the Arabs on the west bank of the Jordan River, and the Arabs in Gaza, now referring to themselves as "Palestinians," have been legitimized through various agreements by the UN and through negotiations with Israel.  Boundaries for the Palestinians have not yet been finalized.  Governmental institutions are still in a primitive stage of development.  Nevertheless, the right of these people to govern themselves is unquestioned.  Indeed, they might have had a state half a century ago, if they had not placed the destruction of Israel ahead of their desire for statehood.  And, whether one agrees, or not, with whether the Palestinians were a invented people, no one questions their right to self determination.

What clearly troubles the "Palestinians" is that their narrative has been challenged.  In this narrative, the Jews were interlopers, they were a foreign colony planted on Arab soil by Europeans.  In this narrative,  Israel's claim to legitimacy is entirely lacking in validity.  Indeed, it is their narrative that has kept Arabs from joining with Jews in a true and proper peace.  And, now, out of the blue, you have a contender for the American presidency, saying the Arab position is nonsense.  Newt's statement says, in so many words, that the claims of the Palestinians are no more legitimate than that of the Israelis.  And, I say, thank you Newt for setting matters straight.  Maybe now the Arabs will understand that their efforts to delegitimize Israel simply won't fly and that the time has come for them to make peace with the Jews.

What Doesn't Obama Get About Sectarianism

Sectarianism: one group in conflict with another.  When it's the Jews being abused it's called anti-Semitism.  But, in Northern Ireland, it was the Catholics and the Protestants at each other's throat.  In what was once Yugoslavia, it was the Croats (Roman Catholic), the Serbs (Eastern Orthodox), and the Muslims who contested one another's rights to land.

That Arabs (Muslims, but also Christians) in the middle east would deny a place to the Jews is really nothing new.  And, of course, despite whatever notions Obama may harbor, it has no bearing on the attitudes of Muslims towards Americans, towards Jews, or towards westerners in general.  Indeed, the Muslims don't even seem to be able to tolerate each other.  Just this week, a Sunni suicide bomber in Afghanistan detonated his charge outside a Shiite mosque killing scores of Afghans whose only sin was being Shiite.  In Iraq, Shiites have returned the favor and kill Shiia.

But, of course, with the Jews, there's a difference.  Israel, in the life time of many living today, actually created a state which respects the rights of Christians, Muslims, Druse, Bahai, Mormons, etc.  The puzzling thing is that some people; liberal people, who have a problem with Israel, will take even what most people consider to be positive, such as Israel's open attitude towards gays, and give it a negative connotation.  They've now taken to calling it "pink washing."

As someone once said, "No good deed goes unpunished; certainly, not in Israel.

Democrats Handicapping the Republican Primaries

I happened to watch Morning Joe this morning and was treated to an entertaining discussion as to who would make the best candidate to take on Obama.  Would it be Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney?  Let me be clear, I have no dog in this fight.  I'm an ABO (Anyone But Obama) person.  I will gladly vote for either candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

But first, a quick comment on the rest of the republican field.  Michelle Bachman -- a great person but too socially conservative for mainstream America.  Rick Santorum -- ditto.  Ron Paul -- a man with a firm grasp on the libertarian vote.  Unfortunately for him, Americans, by and large, are not libertarians.  And then we come to the avuncular Jon Huntsman.  Nice guy, but Americans are no more likely to vote for him than for the late, and much loved, Mr. Rogers.

The comments of that old political pro, Joe Scarborough said more about Joe, himself, than they did about the candidates.  To paraphrase Joe:  Keep your eye on Ron Paul.  His poll numbers have been steady and he looks likely to move up.  Really!  And, then commenting on Newt vs. Mitt:  Newt's like a car crash waiting to happen.  Mitt (in Joe's opinion) is clearly the best man to take on Obama.

Niall Ferguson happily explained that, in American elections, a steady hand like Mitt's wins.  I happen to love Niall Ferguson.  I love his books.  He's a great historian -- although my endorsement doesn't count for much.  And, who knows, he may be right.  But, culturally, Ferguson is not an American.  He's not steeped in American culture.  He's a Scot.  Also, historians are great at looking in the rear view mirror.  In my opinion, they're less reliable when it comes to looking down the road ahead.  But, who knows?

Joe's other guest was David Gregory, of Meet the Press.  He saw it differently.  In his view, Americans are very unhappy.  Independent voters had pinned their hopes on Obama and now have buyer's regret.  They yearn for someone who will talk straight and who appears to know what he's talking about.  Mitt's fine, but he's too generic, too vanilla, too cautious.

David Gregory may have it right.  We'll see.

As you can see, I do tune in to Morning Joe.  But, it's not to receive Joe's wisdom.  It's his guests that make his show so appealing.  As to Joe himself:  I find him to be a phony.  He's always coming out with how he's a Republican and speaks as a Republican.  Nonsense.  He's no more a Republican than a Neocon is a communist.  Neocons are more honest.  They were once on the far left.  And, they won't deny it.  But, they became disillusioned and moved to the right.  If Joe was indeed a Republican, it's clear he's moved to the left.  And, that's okay.  But, he really ought to stop with that business of how he's a Republican.  Joe's like so many committed Democrats who can understand why Americans are unhappy with Obama.  But, when the time comes to vote, they'll vote for Obama, regardless of who the Republican candidate might be.

What makes Joe seem so wise is that he's paired himself with that twit, Mika.  Sitting next to her would make Humpty Dumpty seem like a sage.