Gingrich on Palestinian textbooks

[sarge]

I don't think anyone denies that anti-semitic hatred is taught through Palestinian textbooks.

However, the question is: Is there any evidence to back up Gingrich's claim they teach: ‘If there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?’.

If not, he's just carelessly made up something about an incredibly volatile situation which is beneath a candidate for President of the United States.

Right now, the evidence indicates that the Grinch's claims are essentially correct. Except as a way to pull a "gotcha", it matters not at all whether the specific "how many jews" passage is in a Palestinian textbook.

What is important is why someone that aspires to be President of the US would make a statement that is needlesly harmful to acheiving our goals in the Middle East. Even though his statement was essentially correct on every count, it was a really dumb thing to say. In my mind, someone that would publically utter something that is likely to undermine our foregin policy goals is unfit to be President.

 

[Pardalis]

Who cares if it's true? It sounds like it could be true. And Palestinians don't exist.

You mean the Jordanians?

 

[angrysoba]

Right now, the evidence indicates that the Grinch's claims are essentially correct. Except as a way to pull a "gotcha", it matters not at all whether the specific "how many jews" passage is in a Palestinian textbook.

What is important is why someone that aspires to be President of the US would make a statement that is needlesly harmful to acheiving our goals in the Middle East. Even though his statement was essentially correct on every count, it was a really dumb thing to say. In my mind, someone that would publically utter something that is likely to undermine our foregin policy goals is unfit to be President.

Maybe because "our" goals are not the same as his goals which he probably thinks are best served by him saying something like that.

Anyway, if you want to play a drinking game, I challenge you to take a shot everytime you hear, "Our friend/ally Israel", "shoulder to shoulder with Israel" or "Bibi". There're some serious queer crushes for Benjamin Netanyahu going on here.

 

[MaGZ]

You mean the Jordanians?

You agree with Newt on this? He said “Palestinians” was not used until 1977.

 

[MaGZ]

Maybe because "our" goals are not the same as his goals which he probably thinks are best served by him saying something like that.

Anyway, if you want to play a drinking game, I challenge you to take a shot everytime you hear, "Our friend/ally Israel", "shoulder to shoulder with Israel" or "Bibi". There're some serious queer crushes for Benjamin Netanyahu going on here.

The next time this happens I wish Ron Paul will mention the attack on the USS Liberty.

 

[Pardalis]

You agree with Newt on this? He said “Palestinians” was not used until 1977.

No.

He said 1967.

 

[angrysoba]

No.

He said 1967.

I think he said 1977. I even went back and listened again because I was so gobsmacked.

By the way, even if he said 1967 he would have been taking a massive dump on his historian credentials.

 

[angrysoba]

No.

He said 1967.

From 04:25.

I listened again. Gingrich said 1977. Perhaps he is confusing that with the Likud Platform of the same year which said that Israel includes all land from the Sea to the Jordan.

 

[bikerdruid]

I don't have a link to the textbook but Nazi-grade antisemitism has been taught in Palestinian schools for decades. Most Arab countries do it.

evidence?
bet ya don't have any.
how about proof from one of those other arab countries that 'do it'?

 

[tyr_13]

Right now, the evidence indicates that the Grinch's claims are essentially correct. Except as a way to pull a "gotcha", it matters not at all whether the specific "how many jews" passage is in a Palestinian textbook.

What is important is why someone that aspires to be President of the US would make a statement that is needlesly harmful to acheiving our goals in the Middle East. Even though his statement was essentially correct on every count, it was a really dumb thing to say. In my mind, someone that would publically utter something that is likely to undermine our foregin policy goals is unfit to be President.

I don't post 'this' often, but, this.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sec. of State Clinton agrees:

http://palwatch.org/site/modules/print/preview.aspx?fi=92&doc_id=101

Is Palwatch anything like Jewwatch?

 

[WildCat]

Is Palwatch anything like Jewwatch?

You don't think then-Sen. Clinton said that?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Who cares if it's true? It sounds like it could be true. And Palestinians don't exist.

It's the new math.

13 Jews plus 1 Palestinian equals 0 since Palestinians explode in the presence of Jews.

 

[Virus]

Is Palwatch anything like Jewwatch?

Are they neo-Nazis? No.

 

[MaGZ]

I think he said 1977. I even went back and listened again because I was so gobsmacked.

By the way, even if he said 1967 he would have been taking a massive dump on his historian credentials.

In that debate Newt also said all Palestinians are terrorists, meaning no exceptions. That’s hate speech.

 

[phantasmagoria7]

Recent news about Palestinian and Israeli textbooks:

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/02/03/3118651/when-textbooks-collide-shorter-version


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...nd-palestinian-textbooks-treat-the-other-side

 

[Almo]

Recent news about Palestinian and Israeli textbooks:

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/02/03/3118651/when-textbooks-collide-shorter-version


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...nd-palestinian-textbooks-treat-the-other-side

Good find on the npr link there. Somehow, this version of the story sounds more plausible than others shreiking about how horrible one side or the other is.

 

[monty1]

I think an interesting question in turn would be, what do Israeli textbooks say about Palestinians?

It's not necessary for Israeli textbooks to express any hate rhetoric against Palestinians. In that case the hate is not just implied, it is expressed with brutality through military action.

Look carefully at any nation that is a victim of the more powerful aggressor and you will find the same thing expressed by the people in writing. But you won't find the hate expressed in textbooks of the large aggressor nation. There's no need for that and we should easily be able to understand why.

Hillary Clinton's words are a carefully chosen work of propaganda. This is easily seen by the way she evokes the motherhood issue. Motherhood can't ever be challenged with any credibility. And that's the reason why it worries me that Hillary could actually rise to power in 2016. This is not a continuation of Obama's work. Obama knows that America's wars spell trouble in many ways. (in the form of a mushroom cloud?) He's easily smart enough to understand that possibility. Hillary will meet that challenge with just more extension of US power abroad.

However, to be fair to Hillary, it would be political suicide to mention a change to a program of fairness with the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Sayng what she said above shows that is not on her agenda or she would have worded it differently or would have just remained silent.

Never doubt that the Palestinian people are expressing a great deal of hate against their powerful aggressor. And don't doubt that those people will instill that hate in the minds of their children. Americans only need to look inward for the obvious answer. Who do they think taught the teenagers who express hate here against Palestinians, Iranians, N. Koreans, Afghanis, and so on.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is important is why someone that aspires to be President of the US would make a statement that is needlesly harmful to acheiving our goals in the Middle East. Even though his statement was essentially correct on every count, it was a really dumb thing to say. In my mind, someone that would publically utter something that is likely to undermine our foregin policy goals is unfit to be President.

Why does telling the truth about this hurt our interests? I don't get it. What are the negative consequences you think flow from not participating in a fantasy?

 

[monty1]

Right now, the evidence indicates that the Grinch's claims are essentially correct. Except as a way to pull a "gotcha", it matters not at all whether the specific "how many jews" passage is in a Palestinian textbook.

What is important is why someone that aspires to be President of the US would make a statement that is needlesly harmful to acheiving our goals in the Middle East. Even though his statement was essentially correct on every count, it was a really dumb thing to say. In my mind, someone that would publically utter something that is likely to undermine our foregin policy goals is unfit to be President.

The US goal in the ME is not for peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That is impossible now, due the impossibility of removing the settlements on Palestinian land. And so, peace will only be attained when the Palestinians fight to their death in numbers that make them no longer significant.

But the perception that the US wants a just peace is the appearance that must be kept up. We should all know by now that Israel couldn't exist any longer if it's captured or stolen territory was to be reduced to meet the UN mandate.

We must discuss the issue further only on the basis of that understanding. That is, if we want to attempt to be honest about the situation.