THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Actually that's not what he said at all. It was quite the opposite really. Here is the video clip...
“Remember there was no Palestine as a state. 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.” -- Newt GingrichSo it's not the legitimacy of Israel Gingrich denies, but the legitimacy of Palestine. This is Zionism, plain and simple, and it's a double standard. The State of Israel was CREATED by a UN mandate. It is just as much an artificial state as Palestine, if not more so. Gingrich's position is also intellectually dishonest, and in my opinion, it is designed to gain Jewish votes while Obama is losing them.
Let's be intellectually honest about this. If the UN can mandate the State of Israel, than it can also mandate the State of Palestine, and if it cannot (or should not) mandate Palestine, than what do we say of the State of Israel?
17 comments; post here:
The man is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage. Does it really matter what his views on Israel are? If so, why?
Newt Gingrich: "Remember there was no Israel as a state. It was part of the British Mandate. And I think that we’ve had an invented Israeli people, who are in fact Europeans, and were historically part of the European community. And they had a chance to go many places."
If Gingrich had said that he'd be relating the truth, instead of the lie he did tell.
Sir Knight,
i have always assumed that due to the unfurling of world circumstances over the first half of the 20th century, the UN HAD, for all intents and purposes, legitimized Palestine; only, the Israelis became a little upset about this for a bit back in 1967; what a shocking mess! And the poor, abused, shunned, ignored, sacrificed Marounite, Melchite and Chaldean will pay the price YET AGAIN!! Ho Hum; this is becoming just a little too tedius for my liking...
A royally mad Marounite!!!
Newt said this, "For fear of the Jews." http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=7&l=13#x Too bad for Newt because we know that "he who denies me before men, I will deny before my Father." http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=10&l=33#x
I was not going to vote for Gingrich becase his past behaviors show he is a man who has had a very dysfunctional sexual history, and has vacillated on many important issues. His membership in the Council Of Foreign Relations is also troubling to me, since that's a one-world organization. Mr. Gingrich may have converted to our holy faith, but that doesn't qualify him to be president. It only means that he, by virtue of his converison, has ascess to eternal life like every other Catholic in the world.
His kow-towing to the Zionists shows he's brought and paid for by thse people. Some good Catholics priests and laymen need to take Newt aside and explain two things to him: one, the Christians of the Middle East are in danger of being wiped ot by Muslim and Jewish extremists, partly becuase of our country's meddling, and two, he's running for and maybe elected to the office of President of the USA, not the president of Israel. He needs to be taught that he's to run the USA for the well being of the American people, not Jewish-Zionist special interest groups. That's why I'm going to vote for Ron Paul. He actually believes he should be an American President, instead of a puppet of foreign special interest groups.
The man is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage. Does it really matter what his views on Israel are? If so, why?
Callista Gingrich has been described as a "devout Catholic" so am I correct in assuming that Newt's two previous marriages were annulled and that he and Callista were married in the Church?
Luciana
Your assumption would be correct Luciana. In a sacramental sense, Newt Gingrich has only been married one time - to Callista. His previous two 'marriages' were just legal contracts.
It's funny how Gingrich equates the state with the nation. The state is a territorial monopoly of government. The nation is a unique cultural/ethnic group. Consider the Czechs prior to 1918 - were they not a nation just because they didn't have a state of their own? Or what about the Filipinos prior to 1946 - were they not a nation before then? Gingrich's argument reveals a deeply statist attitude on his part. He is a dangerous man. And he's not traditional-minded at all. I can not support such a man. If it comes down to between him and Obama I will stay home on election day. Never again will I vote for "the lesser of two evils." If the candidate is not a morally-decent person who supports decentralisation and rolling back the state then I will not vote for him.
So far, I am with you PalmettoPatriot. (PS - I've got kin in South Carolina). If it comes down to a choice between Obama and Gingrich (or Romney) I will either stay home on election day, or else go to the polls and pull the lever for whoever runs on the Constitution Party ticket -- just to register a protest vote. Of course if Ron Paul runs as an Independent, I may go that way instead just to get the message across. I will no longer play this game of voting for the candidates they pick for us. I am personally seceding from the realm.
In fact, didn't the UN create a Palestinian state??? Israeli military aggression kept it from being realized, yes, but wasn't that the original UN plan?
Your assumption would be correct Luciana. In a sacramental sense, Newt Gingrich has only been married one time - to Callista. His previous two 'marriages' were just legal contracts.
I am very disturbed by this.
Luciana
Does it really matter what his views on Israel are? If so, why?
It can, yes, depending upon what one means by pro-Israel. If you mean he supports Israel defending itself from invasion and attack, I see no problem with that. If pro-Israel means agreeing with and providing material support to Israel's foreign policy regardless of the moral implications of that policy, then there is a problem. Such a view commits our own resources to supporting potentially immoral practices. This concern would apply to ANY foreign country, not just Israel.
Personally I think stuff like this that's going on in the Middle East is just stuff we in the West should keep our nose out of. I've never been interested in this whole conflict really, but I sometimes tend to back Israel when I see the amount of hypocrites who back Palestine.
If Palestinians are in such danger then let the Arab League do something about it. God knows the West would get precious little thanks for any help they offered. No, we'd get it spit back in our face once the Palestinians were in a healthy position in the ME.
I don't like leaving countries at the mercy of other aggressor countries, but Palestine is hardly innocent, and I don't see the logic in supporting a people who would gladly return the favour by stabbing you in the back given have the chance.
Antaine,
Tell this to indigenous Arab and palestinian Christians who have had communities of faith in this part of the world since Apostolic times; tell this to my Marounite brothers and sisters, plus to the several other Catholic rites in this part of the world, and to the Orthodox also...Have a care for your Middle Eastern brothers and sisters in Christ who are the whipping boys for both sides - God knows, the Arab league couldn't care, but this DOES NOT mean they do not deserve assistance - these are your brothers and sisters in the lord; saved by the SAME shed blood of our Saviour!! I sit next to them in Church every Sunday - and during week day mass when i can make it!! They have lost everything, in some cases, because of their faith - your pro Israel rhetoric has hurt them too...
An even more royally mad and very upset Marounite!!
PS: Come on, Sir Knight, how's about a few links to very good articles you have written on this in the past and a word or two of redress
Marounite Anonmyous,
You misunderstand me completely. As I have already stated, I do not support Israel. I simply do not like people proclaiming one group of people to be innocent simply because they are losing.
Your point about supporting christians in this part of the world is exactly my point. There are plenty of people willing to stand up for the palestinians, or any islamic people affected by the Arab Spring; but why is it those same people will not so much as utter a word for the christians in this part of the world?
For eg, people were all willing to hop on the band wagon of talking about how the poor egyptians only want democracy (when all the majority really want is Sharia), and yet not too much notice has been given to the copts who have been negatively affected.
Don't claim that I have ever turned my back on a brother or sister in Christ. The war between Israel and Palestine is mainly fueled by one thing, and that is the rivalry between Islam and Judaism... or so it seems.
If I appear to be anti-Palestine it is because I know life won't get any better for christians in the ME if Israel were to disappear and Palestine take over. I'm not saying this is a legitimate excuse to leave palestinians homeless.
I'll try to put it this way. It's like the lesser of two evils - I'll choose neither unless I think one is becoming too big for it's own good. In this case, too many people are anti-Israel while failing to notice that Palestine is vulnerable to a jihadist take over. If Jihadists take over the entire ME there's really only one place to turn their attention - West.
This is why I believe people in the west should focus less on the war between Judaism and Islam, and more on looking after their christian brethren, and indeed any other minority in the ME in need of help.
For a catholic site there appears to be very little biblical perspective sad really
Anonymous, I beg to differ, but before I explain you will first have to define what you mean by "biblical perspective."
Post a Comment