Republican Presidential Candidates

So Newt Gingrich, who loves causing bruhahas, caused a bruhaha -what a shocker. The LA Times quotes Gingrich as follows:" "I believe that the commitments that were made at the time – remember, there was no Palestine as a state,” Gingrich said. “It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.” "

So as much as I dislike Gingrich (a man who cheats on his wife and had to pay fines for ethics violations when he was Speaker of the House is not quite my cup of tea), in this case, he was technically right: There never has been a state called Palestine ruled by Palestinians. There was supposed to be an Arab state under the partition plan that resulted in Israel's creation, but the Arab League rejected the plan, and Arab states declared war on Israel. The result of the war was territorial gains for Israel in what would have been the Arab state, and a massive refugee crisis as Arabs fled to neighboring Arab countries. The technicall definition of a Palestinian refugee is anyone who had to flee as a result of the war who was living in the British-Mandate area known as Palestine (ruled by the British) as of 46, which is hardly a long-lasting residency considering the war was in 48. Palestinian nationalism largely developed as a result of the refugee-dom of residents who until 48 had thought of themselves merely as Arabs living in the British-Mandate area called Palestie. Of course, the right to Palestinian statehood has been recognized in the Oslo Peace Process, which is an international treaty, but Gingrich had his facts right, because he places the official "making up" of Palestinian nationhood, and I guess it was "made up" by international law - but then again so were the nationhoods of many modern nation-states. I suppose now would be a good time to get into the difference between legal nation-states and the metaphysical concept of nationhood, but thats beyond the scope of a 5 am blog post.

The world's outcry aboutGingrich's comments show how we live in a world in which certain facts are swept under the rug because they are "politically incorrect". That is a major problem because it promotes ignorance and prevents honest discourse. Not to mention that when truths are hidden, injustices usually occur.

What really bothers me are Gingrich's other comments, in which he basically says that all Palestinians are terrorists (hello, racism) and lambasts the peace process (let's all get our shotguns and shoot em out back). And this is what bothers me about the right in general: They just don't get it. The origin of Palestinian statehood is irrelevant. There are currently millions of people - I call them Palestinians, you call them whatever you want - who are not about to go away (To right-wingers who want to send them to Arab states - get real.) So the solution is either permanent Israeli Occupation - not a real solution - a bi-national state - which neither side wants - or a two-state solution, which both sides have at least in theory, agreed to accept. By the way, Israel no longer occupies Gaza, and Hamas, which rules Gaza and still openly calls for destroying Israel, which is why I do distinguish between the West Bank and Gaza. So it's time to stop focusing on who is "right" or what happened on the past, and instead focus on what must be done if for non other than pragmatic reasons.

By the way, Gingrich's transparent pandering to the "Jewish vote", as if Jews all voted in a block (as a Jew, I can testify to the falseness of this assumption - rarely have I been at a Sabbath meal in which a political argument between Jews did not ensue), is disgusting, both because sucking up to a voting block(which is different than taking different ethnic/religious/socioeconomic groups' needs into account) is always distasteful, and because the concept of Jews being a powerful, united, voting bloc just plays into anti-Semitic sterotypes of Jewish power originating in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

As for my pick? I like John Hunstman - but unfortunately, the media has decided he does not have a chance, and therefore stopped covering him, thus insuring that in reality he will not stand a chance. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy!