One of the leading contesters for presidential candidacy of the US Republican party Newt Gingrich claimed that the Palestinians are an invented people. In light of the fact that the US withdrew its funding for UNESCO for taking the Palestinians as a member in that organization, this predicts there will be no peace in the Near-East in the near future.

Mr. Gincrich said: “Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire.” Yes, that it was until the early 20th century. But what is that supposed to mean? That the Palestinians are not a nation, or what? Is this representing idiotism, or pure evil intent?

 By those standards Finland is not a nation but part of Russia as we were part of Russia until the early 20th century. There is actually a host of countries that were part of some empire until the early, or even later 20th century. Does Mr. Gincrich share his views about Palestine concerning all those nations? According to the same logic the USA is not an actual nation as it was just a part of the British Empire until the late 18th century. What is Israel supposed to be by those standards? Is this guy for real???

Mr. Gincrich also said: “I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they 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, and it’s tragic,” Excuse me, but could someone please explain me who is the “we” this high ranking US politician is referring to? To claim that Palestinians are Arabs of course holds true. They speak Arabic. But is Mr. Gincrich here implying that all the Arab speaking people should have only one enormous state stretching from Iraq to Morocco, or what? That in fact Jordania, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, and the US ally Saudi-Arabia are in fact not separate nations? What a strange thought. If that is so, what was the point of the previous Gulf war? When Iraq invaded a nother Arab nation Kuwait, was it not just fullfilling the ideal Mr. Gincrich is here representing? So, the people of Kuwait could have gone somewhere else in the Arabia as “they had a chance to go many places”. If there is no separate Palestine nation, because they speak Arabic, howcome there is a separate nation of USA, since they speak english there?

Is Mr. Gincrich actually suggesting, that the Palestinians should have all just packed their bags and moved from their homes to leave for some other country? How many of you, my readers, would be willing to move from your homes to an unknown future in a foreign country, because some other people wanted to invade? How many of you would not fight for your right for your ancestrall land? Is Newt here showing that he has no understanding of patriotism? Very interresting trait for a president of any nation. He would propably be the first anti-patriotic president ever anywhere. These comments from someone seriously contending to such a high seat of power are just so inconcievably far out.

What actuallycaused Mr. Newt Gincrich to utter these absurd assertions? Political ambition could be one guess.  No doubt, he sought to raise political and possibly even monetary support, by giving this interview to a Jewish channel. (A Jewish channel – Now, does that not sound like an invention by Mr. Hitler?) In essence, these thoughts Newt presented are a reflection of how a large crowd of people think. That the justification of the zionist movement and the state of Israel is derived from the Palestinians actually having no particular rights as a nation, or even as indigenous people where they live. 

As if the Palestinians did not even exist. However, they do. Their ancestors lived in Palestine for hundreds of years before the invention of the zionist movement.

Beware. Regardless how Mr. Gincrich feels about the opinions he uttered in hope to gain support, there is a great number of people who agree with him. Who refuse to see the situation from a neutral perspective, though none of them has anything invested into the conflict. People who are religiously motivated to see the other side as evil. Notice that Mr. Gincrich did not even mention relgious reasons in this interview. They were implied as given.  As if logic and realities of politics supported fundamentalist christianity in that all of Palestine belongs to the Jews.

No doubt that the Israelis have right to their own state and they have a right to protect their citizens, but that gives them no right to oppress the Palestinians. Yet, they do, and such opinions as expressed by Newt here, are exactly what makes such an apartheid culture possible.

Many religions claim that morals is something given by their god in some form of holy scripture, or remembrance. Now, if people could only aply those instructions from their gods… Too easily people succumb to moralism and refuse to see the humanitarian side of things as long as there is a god to produce supreme authority behind violence. Why is it that people need to mess up the gods into their political games? As if people would not be able to come up with good enough reasons to kill each other without excuses from imaginary entities?

Newt Gincrich may make one laugh at the stupidity of the US politics, but it is not funny at all, if such a man gains power and starts to make decisions as the head of state in a country that weilds so much miltary power and allready occupies so many other countries – Arabic speaking countries among ohters. Or even if he uses such powerfull position to let out comments, that show such ignorance of history. Certainly it will prove to be a terrible cituation to the very real and not at all invented people of Palestine.

A news cast of by Fox news on the issue: