Politico - Newt Gingrich goes to spouse school

Annie Karni at Politico ("We reach the most influential people in the country") shares a look behind the curtain of diplomatic training.

Money quote(s):

"Aware that this new, less celebrated role will take some getting used to, Gingrich eagerly enrolled himself in what he referred to, excitedly, as “spouse school.”

The program, run by the State Department and hosted on the Arlington, Virginia, campus of the Foreign Service Institute, was started in the 1950s, when it was referred to simply as the “Wives Seminar.”"

This is not your father's (or even your older brother's) Foreign Service.  

At half of the embassies CAA has worked at the ambassador was a woman.  Of those three all were married:  one husband was a former ambassador himself (he sometimes had trouble remembering he was a former ambassador, but only in his dealings with American staff).  The others two were each a retired and a serving FSO (assigned elsewhere) so they already knew the lay of the land.

"Gingrich and the 12 other spouses of waiting-to-be-confirmed ambassadors were educated on some basic rules of the road. “You always have two fridges,” Gingrich marveled in an interview with POLITICO, “one for personal food, one for entertaining, so you’re not eating out of the taxpayer refrigerator. I didn’t know that.” "

If only every serving member of Congress got a look behind the curtain to see the lengths we go to not live high on the taxpayer's dime.

" “We learned about art,” Gingrich marveled. “They have an entire loan program for trying to keep the embassies with appropriate art representing the United States.”

As for furnishing the place, he noted, “you can bring your own furniture and store theirs, but you’re moving into a furnished facility. I think we’re going to use theirs, but that’s not a decision I would pretend to be the final arbiter on.” "

The public areas of an ambassador's residence are exactly that:  public.  They are representational spaces.  That being said, the ambassador and her or his family have to actually live there so each one's decisions of what's personal and what's mission are going to vary a bit based on preferences and on the nature of the building and the host country themselves.

At a minimum this suggestion:  bring your own bed.

"“I sat through a couple of hours on how to do interviews,” Gingrich said. “The first point they make over and over is, you are not the principal. I’m wearing my spouse hat. I’ve got to be very circumspect. We don’t want to confuse people about who speaks for the United States. Callista speaks for the United States. I just speak for Newt Gingrich.” "

Mr. Gingrich doesn't need a lot of coaching on giving interviews personally but it's encouraging he recognizes the altered boundaries due to his wife's mission.  Wish him luck!

re: "Andrew McCarthy: Gingrich Has It Right On Our 'Imperial' Courts"

GW at Wolf Howling commented on some proposed Constitutional tinkering.

Money quote(s):

"Conservatives have been shaking their fists impotently at the Courts for their judicial activism - their Poliburo like unilateral amendments to the Constitution working fundamental changes to our nation - for the past fifty years. Heretofore, the only solution to the problem was thought to be electing Presidents who will appoint judges grounded in originalism. That has been less than successful. Enter Newt Gingrich, who has completely changed the paradigm on this critical issue. He wants to make a systemic fix that will permanently restore the Constitutional balance between the three branches of our government as such balance was envisioned by the Founders."

So, what's this all about?

"Andrew McCarthy, reviews Newt Gingrich's plan to redress the balance."

GW concluded:

"Correcting this vast overreach by our Courts over the past half century, restoring the balance to that envisioned by our Founders, is crucial for the future of our nation."

12/21

re: "There's something I like about Newt Gingrich"

Ann Althouse at Althouse ("blogging since January 14, 2004") likes Newt for intellectual reasons.

Money quote(s):

"Most of the candidates will listen to a question and then answer some question they wish they'd been asked. This is a standard approach to answering questions on television. It's a way to avoid letting the questioner control you, and you create an opportunity to say what you want to say.That's not what Newt does. He listens to the precise question asked and examines it, then works out, before our eyes, what is wrong with that question and what the real issue is. He has a depth of understanding and flexibility of mind that allows him to do that, he cares about doing that accurately and well, and he has the style to want to perform reasoning for us."

I rather like this Gingrich quote myself:

"It is the rule of law. If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the
United States. You cannot go to court."

Also:

"There is a huge gap here that, frankly, far too many people get confused over. Civil defense, criminal defense is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside
criminal law. It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war, and the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you."

11/13

re: "Who's Afraid of Cain?"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook") made some predictions and observations that have stood the test of a few months time.

Money quote(s):

"The reason for the increasing shrillness of the attacks is desperation: the liberal establishment has concluded that Obama is vulnerable, possibly even doomed, and of the Republican candidates only Romney appears to be someone they can work with, someone who can grow in office, who will reach across the aisle to continue liberal programs.

Note that Romney has nothing to do with the attacks on Cain. He’s just the guy the media consider to be the lesser of a number of evils. They can work with him."

Dr. Pournelle follows this observation with a reasonable man's analysis of the "charges" then being leveled against then-candidate Cain.

"Newt will be next. Then anyone else who isn’t Romney. The attack machine will be silent on Romney until he is the nominee. Then it will begin again, but it will be a different attack."

11/9

re: "Reconsidering Newt"

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") is giving former-Speaker Gingrich a second look.

Money quote(s):

"Newt turned me around when he spoke candidly about the invented "Palestinian" people. It's true, of course, but everyone is scared of the savages, so the big lie is advanced in order to keep the peace (when in fact, all it does is keep the war). I was enormously disappointed in the entire field dumping on Gingrich for telling the truth about the Muslims in Gaza and Jewish terrirtories of Judea and Samaria (known by the Arafat construct of "Palestinians"). Gingrich said what everyone knew, that the emperor has no clothes."

Since Arafat ordered the murder of at least one U.S. ambassador, I'm just not able to give a lot of credence to this invention.

"I pricked up my ears when, a few months back, Gingrich said that he would pursue the prosecutions of the unindicted co-conspirators (CAIR, MSA, MAS, ICNA, ISNA, etc.) named in the largest terrorist funding trial, the Holy Land Foundation conviction. Is it any wonder that these Muslim Brotherhood groups are quaking in their jackboots?"

If you haven't read it already, have a look at Exhibit Elbarasse Search 3. of the Holy Land Foundation trial (USA v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development). Scroll down to page 15 to get to the English translation, past all the Arabic.

1/2

re: "Exposing the Palestinian Narrative Gingrich-Style"

Jennifer Hanin at Big Peace refutes criticism of Gingrich's Palestinian remarks by St. Thomas (Friedman) of Globalism.

Money quote(s):

"Gingrich delivered some bold comments about Palestinians being “invented people”. Low and below the belt? Absolutely not. Let’s be honest, Gingrich had the courage to refute the Palestinian narrative and tell the truth. History shows there has never been a “Palestinian people” and the notion of one only gained popularity around 1967 — nearly two decades after Jews re-inhabited their homeland of Judea and Samaria (now Israel) in 1948. More facts Friedman and Kuttab will likely ignore is that in 1947 the UN already par­ti­tioned the same land in question into two states: one Arab and one Jew­ish."

Facts not in dispute.

"Gingrich also knows historical evidence confirms Israel existed as nation as early as 1300 BCE, some two thousand years before Islam. Yet there has never been ANY evidence of a Pales­tin­ian nation. Simply put, if there is no historical evidence to separate Palestinians from Arabs then Palestinians ARE Arabs. The fact is there has never been an authentic Pales­tin­ian lan­guage, a dis­tinct Pales­tin­ian cul­ture, Palestinian currency (except while under British Mandate) or even land once ruled by Palestinians. These facts would give any historian pause, and it did with Gingrich, who used it as an opportunity to set the record straight. Gingrich had to address the Palestinian narrative head-on. For that he should be applauded not ridiculed."

One of the Palestinians interesting projects has been to systematically seek to destroy the archeological record of Jewish history in areas under their control.

"The only people being ignorant about whether Palestinians history is “real” versus “invented” are Palestinians and their supporters, including those keeping lies alive like Friedman and Kuttab. There is nothing racist about calling Palestinians Arabs."

Except, of course, for those Palestinians who are now called Israelis. They can be either Arabs or Jews.

"These self-proclaimed “Palestinians” upset about Gingrich’s comments are the same group that has repeatedly denounced the Oslo Accords and tried to make it null and void. They are also the same group that is responsible for launching a global boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) campaign against Israel, and an ongoing terror campaign that has blanketed the Jewish State with well over 12,000 missiles from Gaza. They are the same group that has refused making peace with seven Israeli administrations. The Oslo Accords, much like Camp David, came about with American intervention to end Arab (Palestinian) violence towards Israelis. It was an attempt to end the missiles and suicide bombings targeting Israelis while helping Arabs (Palestinians) lead more productive lives.

It’s palpable to notice how Friedman and Kuttab never mention the immense violence propagated by “Palestinians” against Israelis. Since 2000, 1,218 Israelis have been killed from Palestinian violence and terrorism."

And:

"Truth be told, Palestinians have engaged in erratic forms of ethnic cleansing against Jews and Israelis for decades. If their missiles were more precise and their bomb attempts didn’t experience occasional hiccups, Israelis would more to worry about.

Honestly, if displaced Arabs had called themselves Transjordanians instead of Palestinians the peacemaking strategy on the American side as ally would be no different. It must be noted that the 22 Arab countries in the region have done nothing to assist “Palestinians” in any way. By refusing to grant them citizenship, they have used them as pawns to continue the conflict."

None of them want the Palestinians out of the refugee camps and polluting their cities and cultures with the pathologies that have been inculcated into them for decades. And in an Arab zero-sum attitude culture, the last thing you do is invite additional competitors for jobs, benefits, &tc.

12/24

re: "Origins of the Palestinian Identity"

Dangerous Company at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") examined the roots of the Palestine question.

Money quote(s):

"No one denies that the Palestinians are a "people." The Israeli government, the United Nations, and the European Union have all recognized the Palestinians as a people with national aspirations.

The question is whether these aspirations evolved organically, or else they were inspired by greater influence from the former Soviet Union and late Arab republics."

It must seem odd, to those who came of age after the First Cold War (i.e., World War III) ended, to learn (or re-learn) just how much of the world's geopolitical landscape was formed (or re-formed) in the manner of an ice age's continent-wide glacial ice sheets, by the late, great Soviet Union and its proxies.

"(T)the Jordanian government remained firm in its position toward Palestine. For nearly thirty years, the West Bank was considered sovereign Jordanian territory. Jordan unilaterally annexed the land, granted all Arab residents citizenship, and conquered East Jerusalem. Unrecognized by the international community, but not challenged. Not the Arab League, the U.N., Israel, nor the Palestinians themselves considered the land "occupied" Palestinian territory. The Palestinian movement delegated all authority to the reigning Arab nations.

Beginning in the 1970s, the Palestinian leadership initiated a campaign to reframe the conflict and invent a local narrative. Riding on the coattails of globalized media, the Palestinians became a post-Soviet Union third-world victim. The alliances the Palestinians made with nations not interested in the creation of a unique Palestinian state were washed from history. Within the halls of the United Nations General Assembly, inflammatory rhetoric comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and South Africa became a defining activity of the organization. The U.N. General Assembly has since passed more resolutions against Israel than all other nations combined.

Though the Palestinian Authority no longer has to smuggle drugs, extort businesses, and engage in blatant theft to support their leaders' wealthy lifestyle, the manners remain the same."

Resistance, revolutionary, or independence movements have this pitfall they can fall into. To raise funds, they undertake illegal activities such as robbing banks (e.g., Stalin's 1907 Tiflis bank robbery), then graduate to protection rackets, smuggling (and not just guns and ammunition), drugs, and prostitution. This is the IRA's fragmented legacy today and it's how the Mafia got its start as well.

"It is easy to simply write off the Palestinians as an invented people, because as far as the facts are considered, their singular purpose is to act as force against Israel. There is no evidence to suggest that the Palestinian government is making meaningful, good-faith attempts to negotiate a state according to realistic conditions. And assuming that they actually did, the Palestinian Authority is so dysfunctional and fractured that any agreement with Israel could not possibly be enforced."

There are, in fact, at least two PAs, each sworn enemies of the other. So they've got that going for them.

"The argument should not be if the Palestinians are an "invented" people. The reality is that their representatives are descendants of terrorists, gangsters, and warlords. The Palestinians of today were never invented. Their identity has yet to be defined. The only defining feature of the Palestinian people is their singular purpose to destroy Israel.

Newt Gingrich should have clarified his views. He should have explained why the Palestinians are an "invented people." The image of the Palestinians is invented. It has been shaped, written, and carved by foreign benefactors. The Jews of Israel do not base their identity on opposition to non-Jewish self-determination. Place the state of Israel anywhere on planet Earth, and it would remain the same. But in the absence of Israel, the Palestinian identity would fall apart." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

12/23

re: "Newt Challenges the Myth of Palestinian Nationalism"

Bruce Thornton at Private Papers doesn't buy the prevailing myth of Palestinian nationhood.

Money quote(s):

"Newt Gingrich touched off a mini-firestorm when he told a Jewish television channel that the Palestinians are an “invented” people “who are in fact Arabs,” and “who were historically part of the Arab community.” This simple statement of historical fact was of course met with the usual bluster from the Palestinians, who called the statements “ignorant,” “despicable,” and of course “racist,” a meaningless charge. And what response from the Palestinians would be complete without the usual threat that the statement they don’t like will “increase the cycle of violence,” as Palestinian lead negotiator Saeb Erekat put it?

The truly “ignorant,” however, are those who have bought the “Palestinian homeland” propaganda. Where was all this talk about a homeland for the Palestinians in 1948, when the Arab armies invaded Israel? Their aim was not to create a Palestinian state, but rather to carve up the rest of British Mandatory Palestine, as the secretary-general of the Arab League, Abdel Rahman Azzam, confessed at the time: “Abdullah [ruler of Transjordan] was to swallow up the central hill regions of Palestine . . . The Egyptians would get the Negev. The Galilee would go to Syria, except that the coastal part as far as Acre would be added to the Lebanon.” Until 1967, the so-called “West Bank” was part of Jordan, but none of the Arab nations agitated for the creation of a Palestinian state. The “Palestinian homeland” became a tactical weapon after violence failed to achieve the real aim, the destruction of Israel."

This abortive land grab cannot fail to remind this historically-minded reader of Stalin's deal to split Poland with Hitler.

"Our failures in dealing with a dysfunctional Middle East in part result from a failure of imagination, our unwillingness to think beyond our own ideals and see beyond the duplicitous pretexts of our adversaries. The tactic of a “Palestinian homeland,” for example, exploits the Western ideal of the nation-state as forming the fundamental structure of a people and their collective identity. But nationalism is not an organic part of Islam, which recognizes no separation of church and state. A people are created by their adherence to Islam, by being members of the global umma or Muslim community. The PLO Charter makes this clear in Article 15: “The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation — peoples and governments — with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard.” Palestinian nationalism is an expression of Arab nationalism, in a way unimaginable for any Western country, for the simple reason that Arab nationalism is in fact another expression of universal Muslim identity."

Yes, but.

Much of "universal Muslim identity" is more accurately described as arabian cultural imperialism. Much of the reason the umma is not, in fact, universal is due to some parts of the Muslim military (and cultural) conquests being less digestible and dissolvable than others, notably Persia and the Berbers.

"National identity, then, means something very different to most Muslims from what it means to us. For most Muslims in the Middle East, being Muslim takes precedence over being an Egyptian, a Libyan, or a Palestinian."

Much of the Middle East, like much of the world outside of Western Europe (and the Anglosphere) is centuries behind us in the formation of a national consciousness. This is in part because they started the process of becoming nation-states later, but also because the forces driving that process are both weaker and opposed by countering forces (such as the umma).

12/15

re: "Palestinians are an Invented People"

Michael Curtis* at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") applies an historian's skills to the Palestinian question.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hatever one's views of the sagacity or judgment of Mr. Gingrich on other issues, or one's opinions on the more general issue of the desirability and character of a Palestinian state existing alongside the state of Israel, the accuracy of his statement cannot be denied.

The conclusion stems from two factors. One is that Arabs living in the area now known as Palestine were regarded, both historically and in contemporary times, not as a separate entity but as part of the general Arab people. This has been recognized by Arab spokesmen, by scholars, and by objective international official reports. The second is that no independent Palestinian state has ever existed, let alone one that manifested a "Palestinian identity." " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Until now, that is; the PA: for values of "independent" and "state."

"That "Arab nation" never included a state known as "Palestine." Indeed, the inhabitants of the general Palestinian area were subjects, not of an Arab nation, but of the Ottoman Empire which ruled the area and lasted from 1516 until the end of World War 1. This was the last generally recognized sovereign power in the area. The area of Palestine was a district of the Empire, officially a vilayet (province), not a political entity. No independent Palestinian state has ever been established, nor was there a single administrative or cultural unit of Palestinians. Arabs in the area were not different in any way from other Arabs in the Middle East area. . Nor was Israel established on the ashes of any state other than that of the Ottoman Empire.

The first official naming of "Palestine" as a distinct, defined territorial area came with the decision of the League of Nations , dealing with areas of the former Ottoman Empire, to create a Mandate for Palestine. This was accorded to Great Britain which ruled the area, from the Mediterranean Sea to west of the Jordan River, from 1922 until May 1948.

All people living in that area were regarded as "Palestinians" without any ethnic connotations. Ironically, the name was used not by Arabs but only by Jews in the area, as in The Palestinian (now the Jerusalem) Post, and the Palestine Symphony (now Israel Philharmonic) Orchestra. Only after the state of Israel was established in May 1948 did the term "Palestinian" become exclusively used in referring to Arabs in the area.

It is now clear that a concept of Palestinian identity and nationalism has emerged and become a political factor."

It's curious how the very word Palestine (and Palestinian) itself was co-opted from the Israelis as soon as they had finished with it.

"The essential problem is not simply a terminological one, a refusal to acknowledge that the category of Palestinian identity is a recent invention. Rather, the insistence on a presumed time honored right of a Palestinian people to the disputed land is being used as a weapon against the right of Israel to exist. Such an insistence is a handicap to a peaceful negotiated agreement between Palestinians and Israel."

12/13

* Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Rutgers University

re: "Gingrich’s Fresh Hope"

Caroline Glick at Big Peace stuck up for former-Speaker Gingrich in the Jerusalem Post.

Money quote(s):

"(F)ormer speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, did something revolutionary. He told the truth about the Palestinians. In an interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich said that the Palestinians are an “invented” people, “who are in fact Arabs.”

His statement about the Palestinians was entirely accurate. At the end of 1920, the “Palestinian people” was artificially carved out of the Arab population of “Greater Syria.” “Greater Syria” included present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. That is, the Palestinian people were invented 91 years ago. Moreover, as Gingrich noted, the term “Palestinian people” only became widely accepted after 1977.

As Daniel Pipes chronicled in a 1989 article on the subject in The Middle East Quarterly, the local Arabs in what became Israel opted for a local nationalistic “Palestinian” identity in part due to their sense that their brethren in Syria were not sufficiently committed to the eradication of Zionism."

So the latest date is 1977, which would (in Western demographic terms) a generation ago, but in Middle Eastern terms is more like two generations. Long enough for the myth of national consciousness to become a reality.

(Which doesn't make Gingrich a liar.)

"In their view, Gingrich is an irresponsible flamethrower because he is turning his back on a 30- year bipartisan consensus. That consensus is based on ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are an artificial people whose identity sprang not from any shared historical experience, but from opposition to Jewish nationalism.

The policy goal of the consensus is to establish an independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River that will live at peace with Israel.

This policy was obsessively advanced throughout the 1990s until it failed completely in 2000, when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected then-prime minister Ehud Barak’s and then US president Bill Clinton’s offer of Palestinian statehood and began the Palestinian terror war against Israel.

BUT RATHER than acknowledge that the policy – and the embrace of Palestinian national identity at its heart – had failed, and consider other options, the US policy establishment in Washington clung to it for dear life. Republicans like Rubin’s mentor, former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, went on to support enthusiastically Israel’s surrender of Gaza in 2005, and to push for Hamas participation in the 2006 Palestinian elections. That withdrawal and those elections catapulted the jihadist terror group to power.

The consensus that Gingrich rejected by telling the truth about the artificial nature of Palestinian nationalism was based on an attempt to square popular support for Israel with the elite’s penchant for appeasement. On the one hand, due to overwhelming public support for a strong US alliance with Israel, most US policy-makers have not dared to abandon Israel as a US ally.

On the other hand, American policy-makers have been historically uncomfortable having to champion Israel to their anti-Israel European colleagues and to their Arab interlocutors who share the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist."

Being uncomfortable sometimes is just something that goes with the job. As fond as I am of Europeans, I don't expect that I'll always agree with them.

"Throughout the Arab world, Islamist forces are on the rise.

Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.

The US is no longer seen as a credible regional power as it pulls its forces out of Iraq without victory, hamstrings its forces in Afghanistan, dooming them to attrition and defeat, and abandons its allies in country after country."

This too shall pass.

"Both Rubin and Abrams, as well as Romney, justified their attacks on Gingrich and their defense of the failed consensus by noting that no Israeli leaders are saying what Gingrich said. Rubin went so far as to allege that Gingrich’s words of truth about the Palestinians hurt Israel.

This is of course absurd. What many Americans fail to recognize is that Israeli leaders are not as free to tell the truth about the nature of the conflict as American leaders are. Rather than look to Israel for leadership on this issue, American leaders would do well to view Israel as the equivalent of West Germany during the Cold War. With half of Berlin occupied by the Red Army and West Berlin serving as the tripwire for a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, West German leaders were not as free to tell the truth about the Soviet Union as American leaders were."

Interesting parallel that appeals to my inner Cold Warrior.

"When Romney criticized Gingrich’s statement as unhelpful to Israel, Gingrich replied, “I feel quite confident that an amazing number of Israelis found it nice to have an American tell the truth about the war they are in the middle of, and the casualties they are taking and the people around them who say, ‘They do not have a right to exist and we want to destroy them.’”

And he is absolutely right. It was more than nice. It was heartening."

Said (actually written) by an Israeli, writing for the Jerusalem Post. So I'm inclined to accept the sentiment as genuine.

12/12

re: "Caroline Glick: Newt’s comments “a cause for hope” "

William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection gleaned the best of Caroline Glick's commentary on criticism of former-Speaker Gingrich's remarks.

12/12

re: "Newt and the "Palestinians" "

Kepha at Uncle Cephas ("A blog devoted to an American's ramblings on religion, culture, and politics.") suggested a talking point.

Money quote(s):

"The time is long past due for the world to tell its Arabic-speaking portion that it needs to naturalize the Falastin Arab refugees and their descendants.

It ought to be a mandatory talking point for everyone in the US foreign policy community that there are roughly around 30,000 victims of an-Nakhbar and their descendants in the USA, and that these people carry US passports whenthey travel, may freely buy and sell real estate, vote in US elections, and even run for office. Yet in the whole of the Arab world from Iraq and the Gulf to Mauretania, only Jordan, the PA, and Israel itself give the Falastin Arabs real citizenship--and even the PA is thinking of denying it to those from pre-1967 Israel.

Yet the Arab states, which insit on keeping the Falastin Arabs stateless, dare to use them as an excuse to trash US embassies and demonize the USA in their government-controlled media (Egypt, the recipient of so much US aid, was notorious in this regard)."

Frankly, there's not much I'd add to that.

12/11

re: "Newt Gingrich Tells the Truth About the Palestinian Non-Entity"

Daniel Horowitz at RedState ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") provided more of the actual history of the Palestinians.

Money quote(s):

"Newt Gingrich hit it out of the park with his succinct assessment of the “Palestinian” cause.

One of the most incorrigible fallacies pertaining to the Middle East is the notion that the Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own. This fallacy stems from the misconception that there is a nation of ‘Palestinians’, and to the extent that such a nation exists, this name is an accurate representation of the Arabs who live in modern Israel. This artful manipulation of the geopolitical lexicon was meant to bestow upon a group of random Arabs a false sense of geographical ties to the Holy Land."

Part of the conceptual problem we Americans have springs from our Western European intellectual heritage, specifically that having to do with the Westphalian notion of the nation-state.

We would be better off, sometimes, to reflect upon our own distinctly American experiences having dealt with tribal peoples of sometimes dubious geographical provenance.

"This delusion is no trivial matter. For years, the left wing foreign policy establishment has rapturously promoted the ‘Palestinians’ as the cause célèbre of our national security interests. Instead of focusing on the real threats to our national security (such as those who, incidentally, fund the so-called Palestinians), the foreign policy establishment has singularly focused on creating a state for the most virulently anti-American people on the face of the planet. Their maniacal fixation on the Palestinians has left them devoid of solutions regarding the broader turmoil in the Middle East.

The first step in undoing this foreign policy mess is for the next president to deracinate the entire myth of a ‘Palestinian people’. Kudos to Newt Gingrich for finally telling the truth about the geopolitical cause célèbre of all the world’s imbeciles."

What complicates this perspective is that when a people of homogenous language and culture tell themselves and teach their children a national myth for multiple generations, the myth becomes the reality and the previously inchoate "Arabs" become "Palestinians."

"All students of history, barring those who attended left-wing universities, know that the origin of the term Palestine comes from the Roman Empire. When they captured Judea during the first century, the Romans renamed the Jewish kingdom ‘Palestine’ after the ancient Philistines referenced in the Bible. After the British kicked out the Ottoman Turks from Transjordan (comprised of modern-day Israel and Jordan), they renamed it the British Mandate of Palestine, once again hearkening back to its ancient etymology. Although the original Balfour Declaration called for a Jewish homeland in the entirety of this territory, 78% of it was ultimately siphoned off for the modern state of Jordan in 1946. Unsatisfied with 78% of the territory, Jordan invaded the new Jewish state of Israel in 1948 and illegally occupied half of the remaining 22% of the territory for 18 years.

In 1967, the Jordanians (not the so-called Palestinians), along with its Arab neighbors, invaded Israel once again in the hopes that they would wipe out the remaining Jewish presence. Israel won that war and kicked out the Jordanians from the land they illegally occupied, known as the West Bank. This land has nothing to do with a Palestinian people; it was illegally part of Jordan for 18 years. 80% of the so-called Palestinians are Jordanian Arabs. Hence, there already is a ‘Palestinian state’ in Jordan."

All true. But given the short 20-year generational cycle of the typical Middle Eastern family, two entire generations have grown to adulthood since 1967, passing on to their children (and grandchildren) their Palestinian nationality.

"(T)here are those who actually understand history, and intuitively reject the notion that we should invest our time and treasure into a lie."

Also true. And given the geographic fragmentation and political disfunction of the Palestinian people as they exist, there are better, closer, and more appreciative ratholes down which U.S. dollars can be poured.

"The Palestinians are the global warming climate change of geopolitical conflict. They use deceptive parlance to advance their agenda. Thankfully, Newt is speaking the truth, instead of worshiping at the altar of the pan-Islamists in the UN. Mitt Romney is accusing him of undercutting the Israelis, but Newt was wise to express the truth from the American perspective. There is no national interest for America in the creation of a state for a non-entity, irrespective of what the Israelis chose for their own interests." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA is unable to locate a distinctly American advantage for championing a Palestinian "statehood" against nominally friendly Israeli interests in the region.

(If the Israelis care to champion such, then they should bankroll it as well.)

12/10

re: "Newt Gingrich and the "Invented" Palestinian People"

Prof. Daniel Pipes at DanielPipes.Org ("the Internet's most accessed sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam") shares Prof. Gingrich's love of history.

Money quote(s):

"The former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and current Republican presidential candidate said yesterday that "there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab people, and they had the chance to go many places." "

Pretty much factual, although the last bit is a little questionable, given how many Palestinian Arabs have been marooned in U.N. refugee camps for generations, as a matter of policy.

"(H)e happens to be absolutely correct: no Arabic-speaking Muslims identified themselves as "Palestinian" until 1920, when, in rapid order this appellation and identity was adopted by the Muslim Arabs living in the British mandate of Palestine."

The thing about inventions is that, successful or unsuccesful, they don't ever get un-invented.





12/10

re: "The mysterious source: who’s most afraid of Cain?"

Neo-neocon ("slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon") speculated on the man (or woman) behind the curtain.

Money quote(s):

"Most of the speculation on the sources’ identities has so far centered on Cain’s Republican opponents. That makes a great deal of sense because they’re the ones who are seemingly most threatened by Cain. Cain himself appears to think one of them bears the blame; he’s been shooting from the hip and accusing Perry consultant Kurt Anderson of being the culprit, although he’s walked back a bit from that charge in recent days.

Or Cain may have other antagonists, perhaps even personal rather than political ones, who possessed the lawsuit information and would like to see him brought him down. As in a detective novel, there’s probably a plethora of possibilities there; a powerful and successful man is likely to make quite a few enemies."

This is likely something that won't be known with any certainty for years, if ever. Still, the Chicago-centric nature of some of the accusers and accusations suggests.....

"One possible source that’s hardly been pointed to is Obama or someone in his camp. But why would Obama bother at this point? In fact, Cain might be a weaker opponent than some of the others, and Obama might even welcome a Cain candidacy.

Then again, perhaps Obama fears it for special reasons of his own. If so, it could be the result of what I’d call the Bobby Rush phenomenon. You may recall that Rush was Obama’s opponent in the 2000 Democratic Congressional primary, and the only person in political life who has (so far) ever gotten the better of Obama.

Rush is a black man of roughly the same age as Cain, although the former is an extreme liberal and the latter a conservative."

Who benefits?

Newt Gingrich benefited most immediately, surging to viability from far back in the Republican pack, but that surge is already tapering off and candidates Romney, Perry, and even Ron Paul are looking viable just before the Iowa presidential caucus. Longer term, obviously the incumbent stands to benefit. Read the whole post.

11/5

re: "On Newt Gingrich; and immigration questions"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog*") insists on applying logic and reason to political issues.

Money quote(s):

"There are about 20 million illegal aliens living in the United States. Suppose that Congress and the President decided tomorrow that "they all must go." How would that come about? Merely transporting Twenty Million People is a non-trivial task. Assume that of the 20 million aliens in the US, ten million will require transport of 1,000 km (621 miles). That is ten billion passenger/kilometers. The total annual rail passenger traffic in the US, including commuter travel, is about 17 billion passenger/kilometers. They would have to be fed. Many would have medical needs. While many of them could be transported by rail to the Mexican border -- in boxcars? or must there be at least day coach transport? -- many would have to go elsewhere, some to Latin America, but many to Asia and Africa, and many to places that will refuse to accept them.

A non-trivial task, even assuming that we could identify them all, and assuming there would be no expensive legal actions required: just identify, apprehend, and transport. It would take an enormous budget to accomplish.

Now add political realities. It's all very well to grab some thug with a long criminal record and say "Enough! Out!" to the general applause of a vast majority, but even then there are going to be problems with the ACLU as well as various immigrant rights organizations. Assume that it can be done: what fraction of the 20 million will that account for?

Of course advocates of amnesty or the dream act like to show the example of a teenage girl brought to the US at age five, brought up to speak English and assimilate to American customs, earning a high school diploma with an A- average, and in general an all-American girl who ought to be college bound. Or the young oriental boy with much the same record. We don't have to concede that people with similar stories will be a very great fraction of the 20 million, but it is not zero, and every one of those will be paraded by the media as soon as apprehended."

Discussion of the logistics? Check.

Discussion of the costs? Check.

Discussion of political opposition? Check.

Discussion of likely poster children? Check.

"(A)n operation this large will require a lot of police agents. Do we insist that they all be capable of handcuffing teenagers and putting them on the train to the border? Do we want a lot of people with that attitude to have police power? And what of illegals who have joined the Armed Forces? Veterans? Active duty soldiers? An operation this large may well require action from the Legions: will they pay more attention to the orders of their officers or the appeals of their comrades? Of course that's a silly question, but my correspondent did talk about crossfire and punishing treason, which probably means civil war, and the Legions, both Regulars and various reserves and militias and National Guard are certainly not going to be idle while that happens."

This is why I don't favor a "big round-up" solution to illegal immigration. The cure is worse than the disease. Dr. Pournelle isn't afraid to think past the it-couldn't-happen-here emo-llectual linders about civil-military conflict.

"The problem of the illegals amongst us will not go away simply because we don't think about it.

Note, incidentally, that Newt distinguishes between the right to be a legal resident and citizenship. This is not brought up in most "amnesty" discussions, but it should be. Citizens have rights, including the right to sponsor other immigrants. The Supreme Court has held that illegal immigrants have rights very similar if not identical to citizens, but that is not the plain language of the Constitution. A sane immigration policy will make that distinction -- including entitlements.

I am not going to "solve" the illegal immigrant problem here, but I will say that denouncing as "amnesty" anything other than a policy of 'deport them all and deport them now' is not useful. We aren't going to deport them all, and no Congress or President will do that, nor could even if it were thought desirable. The United States is not going to erect detention camps nor will we herd people into boxcars. We can't even get the southern border closed."

Any amnesty must be exceptional. That is, exceptionally positive candidates for amnesty receive it, others not-so-much. The honor students and military veterans who'd qualify would self-identify, come forward, and receive it. Bio-metrics and police checks, &tc., would have to apply. Age limits and a prior-to date sometime in the past would be necessary as well, otherwise it only encourages even more illegal immigration.

And I would quibble with former-Speaker Gingrich about the "right to be a legal resident." In what Constitutional article may I find that "right" ennumerated?

Certain classes of person, qualifying under specific statues, have the "right" to petition on behalf of other persons (usually relatives, sometimes employees) to obtain an immigration benefit, including legal permanent residence (LPR). That can include self-petition in certain circumstances.

"We can and should do more to enforce employment laws; but do we really want police coming around to demand "your papers" from our gardeners and fry cooks and homemakers? For if "your papers, please" becomes common practice, there will be demands for equality; for not profiling; for equal opportunity harassment -- but you get the idea."

Just keep the pressure on. Require proof of legal residency (I had to do it whenever I applied for a job) and when it's found out, terminate employment (or fine the employer). If an employee is so blessed valuable that the employer is willing to pay the fine, then perhaps they should be sponsoring (i.e., petitioning on their behalf) them for LPR status. Make both the fine about double the cost of the immigration petition, and that not insignificant (but not necessarily punitive).

The idea is to take them "out of the shadows" and get them enrolled in our public life. Document them. Fingerprint them. Hell, DNA-sample them; but limit that to out-of-the-shadows illegal/undocumented immigrants, line-crossers, and deportees.

And if they break other laws, commit felonies (or three-or-more un-related misdemeanors; that is, not stemming from the same offense) then they get on the conveyor belt to deportation.

IIRC, deportees are barred from legal travel to the U.S. for a period of 10 years (the first time). Apologies: my immigration law book is still in a crate somewhere.

"(P)erhaps, perhaps, there will come a time when there is an actual serious discussion of the subject, and we can come up with policies and tactics that have a chance of working and of actually being adopted.

But we will never get there so long as bringing up the subject for discussion makes you a traitor."

Gingrich? A traitor?

(Nah: just someone I wouldn't want dating a family member.)

_____

Note: Chaos Manor has moved!