I’m sorry but this post is a little incoherent.
You think Newt is running to “beat Netanyahu” and that Newt wants to “run Israel”?
Would you mind explaining yourself because I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm]
noun
- harsh or bitter derision or irony.
- a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
What were you trying to sarcastically suggest?
Seems like a genuine question.
- Little Nemo said: “If Newt Gingrich was running for the Presidency of Palestine, I’d say his campaign would be dead. But he’s running for the American Presidency. Why does he need to worry about offending Palestinians?”
** Fair enough. He tried to be tongue in cheek about it and it’s true. He can say whatever he wants about 3rd party, even offending because he’s not running to be President of Palestine.
- To that, I replied: “It’s not so called Palestinians I’m worried about - it’s so called Israelis b/c it looks like he is running to beat Netanyahu and who wants Newt to run any country let alone Israel.”
** I find Netanyahu to be one of the meanest Israeli PM’s in a long time. His disdain for Palestinians is well documented and his rhetoric before and after he became PM was one of inviting more trouble and doing more provocative and outright offensive things. He is not all that popular in Israel to begin with and is viewed as major obstacle to peace process. So, when Newt says what he said - as Ron Paul simply stated - he is just stirring more trouble by inciting Netanyahu to do more outrageous things which brings me to ironic take on Little Nemo’s original post. At that is - at one point you have to get worried that so much of macho radical posturing might backfire.
Got it?
I honestly haven’t been paying much attention to Newt’s campaign, I do not take him seriously. He’s just the next in a long line going back running through Bachmann–>Perry–>Cain–>Newt that will ultimately end up in Romney getting the nomination as everyone with any sense has known for a long time now.
The reason I’m saying Newt is technically correct on the “invented people” comment is because he is, “technically correct” is the best kind of correct.
However, I am using the term in this case to point out the differences between being correct in a technical sense but being irrelevant in a practical sense. In the year 2011 it does not matter one bit whence Palestinian nationalism came from, it has to be dealt with as it is, this isn’t the year 1895.
Not really, I still don’t get how the phrase Newt was trying to “beat Netanyahu” and you were worried he’d “run Israel” has anything to do with the explanation you provided.
So, what did you mean by saying Gingrich was trying to “beat Netanyahu” and what did you mean by saying you were terrified of him “running Israel”?
Thanks
I thought the real surprise in that interview was that Newt said he was in favor of clemency for Jonathan Pollard. I’m surprised that hasn’t attracted more attention. Has any major party Presidential nominee in the last twenty years said that they’d give Pollard clemency?
It seems like a stretch to me. I’ll amend my previous post to say that Newt Gingrich isn’t running for the Presidency of Palestine or Israel. So even if he gets elected he won’t be directly involved in the administration of either country.
If you don’t like the policies of PM Netanyahu, then worry about Netanyahu. I don’t think Netanyahu needs American politicians to get incited.
Did you watch Republican debate the other night?
It was a game of rhetorical one-upmanship - with, of course, honourable exception of Ron Paul - on the subject of who, as President, will do most for Israel. At one point Newt and Romney were like two schoolyard nobodies fighting who’s known Netanyahu (quarterback), who was longer his friend and who will offer more to him. It was like listening to a couple of old rag fluffers who can get a porn star hard faster. It was below disgusting - you wanted to slap yourself for not flipping the channel when Bachman told her kibbutz story… [valley girl voice] it was like, one time at the kibbutz… :rolleyes:
Point being, for you to pretend that Newt offending Palestinians is irrelevant is pretty silly.
No. He’s pointing out that the electorate in the United States is quite different from the electorate in the other nations in question.
Newt stands by his remark. (But still supports a two-state solution.)
I PM’d you about it. No worries
I think the “invented” line has more play because its fresh and newer. Plus its sooooo stupid, just ugh..
That is typical of Newt – when one of the more dubious notions twirling around in his head escapes through his mouth, he prefers to find a way to save face rather than admit that maybe it wasn’t such a good idea.
Unfortunately, this demagoguery merely further stultifies the peace process between Israel/US and the Palestinian peoples.
Newt loves to lecture. Professor Newt, to you! He’s “the smartest guy in the room”. He’s not going to back away from his professorial pronouncements, or admit that they are impolitic. It is, of course, all about Newt. Which is on reason he wouldn’t be a good president, and one reason why so many Republicans in Congress don’t like him.
Newt is trying to raise money.
It may be new to presidential politics, but I’ve heard it from my far right “friends” before. I’m also pretty sure I’ve read it in a tract or eschatology book. That’s what’s disturbing for me: this fringe belief is becoming more mainstream.
I think both sides of that conflict generally feel the same thing about the other, so I highly doubt that the opinions of one political hack from America makes much of a difference.
It makes a difference in that peace negotiations are stalled in large part because the US–the only outside party that has the power to effect any change in the status quo of that conflict–largely supports the Zionists in their repression of the Palestinian peoples based on religionist and ethnocentric ideologies. Gingrich’s invective echoes these sentiments of the US electorate.