Newt and Arafat
Newt was roundly praised - and deservedly so - for calling the Palestinians an invented people.
As many before me have noted, they are the realization of the verse:
The AP reported:וַאֲנִי אַקְנִיאֵם בְּלֹא-עָםand I will rouse them to jealousy with a no-people
The remarks struck at the heart of Palestinian sensitivities about the righteousness of their struggle for an independent state and put him at odds not only with the international community but with all but an extremist fringe in Israel.I am proud to be part of that "extremist fringe" that are not at odds with that statement. And the amount of praised heaped upon Newt for his statement belies the idea that it is merely an "extremist fringe" who thinks a Palestinian state is a bad idea.
Just today, HuffPo published a picture of Newt and Arafat together. This was in 1993 when Arafat was popular with the world. Yes, he should have known better for meeting with the scum, but it seems he learned his lesson in subsequent years, as the HuffPo article itself points out.
In fact, in 1997, the US News and World Report reported in an Op-Ed:
Newt Gingrich is on the defensive these days, yet he is one of the few who have seen what is happening and have had the courage to define the central issues: "There's a core principle here that we have forgotten ... It is extraordinarily dangerous to confuse the aggressor and the victim. It is extraordinarily dangerous to confuse the terrorist and the democracy. It is extraordinary to always impose the burden on those who are your friends, because you're too timid to tell the truth to those who are your enemies."From that account, Newt seemed pretty pro-Israel and anti-Arafat in the late 90s. A picture during Oslo won't change that.
But Newt may have more trouble on the way - not from the Palestinians, but rather from the Paulistinians - as Ron Paul has closed in on Newt within one percentage point in Iowa in a new poll.
posted by yaak @ 12/13/2011 05:50:00 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/palestinians_are_an_invented_people.html
Ron Paul will become especially dangerous after the Euro collapses sending the world into a deep Depression from the milder Depression in which the US already finds itself. Please be safe there in the US, and prepare if it is not yet too late. G-d bless.
there are many rightous souls in the body of esau and the other 70 nations and to contrast many wicked souls erev rav erev zeir in the body of yaakov . shaar hagilgulime and divrei ramchal and divrei gra . But the chassidus of the alter rebbe doesnt explain it this way . May mashiach soon come with the prophet elijah to give rulings on those matters we dont understand properly .
G-d bless him if he (newt) is sincere to the jewish people and their G-d given cause. if its just an election gimmick to get jewish votes and cash, Hashem will Judge him. Newt should consider it a most prized honor to be of aid to the jewish people, however, if he refuses it, Hashem will find another or Himself do it.
Michael Savage offered him 1Mil to opt out of the election. Glenn Beck says he is not reliable and is a "Progressive" the likes of Teddy.
Must see and hear Glenn on Newt
Apparently from yesterday's statement by Newt, it is the other Roosevelt, FDR, who in his mind is clearly the greatest President of, at least, the 20th Century. That might, sadly, finish him off politically. I kind of like a history professor who tells it like it is in foreign policy. He may have earned a very high spot in Olam HaBa for what he said about the Fakestinians, but the Tea Party will be angry about his love for FDR.
As far as Beck is concerned, he has repeatedly made it clear that he favors either Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum in the primaries. He just said on yesterday's radio show that Gingrich as the Republican nominee and Ron Paul as a 3rd party candidate would be a national nightmare, and that he would have to get down on his knees to ask G-d about what to do, given such an incredibly horrible choice. Glenn should pull some of Michael Medved's shows from 2008 about Paul's Nazi connections to mercifully bring an end to Ron Paul's aura. So why are Republicans now choosing Ron Paul over Michelle Bachmann who is clearly a decent woman? Perhaps there is a darkening in the American soul taking place as we speak. Plus, this is Iowa, and we see what Iowans think about Mr. Rubashkin.
I do not understand the absolute credulousness by the masses (including you, Yaak) for politicians who would sell their own mothers into slavery if it advanced their desire for power.
Newt, or his campaign staff, said almost immediately after calling them an invented people that he still supported the "peace process" and a Palestinian state.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, has said over and over that he wants America to butt out of Israel's own interests and let Israel do what it feels it needs to do without holding it back.
Because of the consistency of his positions, his statement on Osirak, decades later, is still the best proof of his itentions vis a vis Israel, regardless of his own personal beliefs.
When everyone, and I mean EVERYONE from Reagan on down, condemned Israel for that unilateral move, Paul vociferously supported Israel's right to pursue its own policies, even though doing so gained him absolutely nothing.
Newt is an opportunist who will say anything to get elected. He's a lousy human being and a disgrace to humanity.
I feel sorry for people who willingly, over and over, let themselves be snowed by these charlatans who say whatever their audience wants to hear.
My own theory, as a Jew, on Ron Paul? In order for Yaakov to rise, Eisav must fall. The US is on top. Economically, the US Federal Government is destined for a total collapse without real, and very serious, downsizing (within 10 years or so). A collapse would be bad for all, as the power vacuum would almost certainly bring on war like the world has never seen before. However, a downsized US, as Paul envisions, leaves a robust US in place, even if it stops acting as the policeman of the world. Eisav would be down, giving Israel the opportunity to rise, without destroying America in the process. And despite everything, America has been good to the Jews and relatively good to Israel. So, personally, I think this is the better solution.
Now, Paul referring to Gaza as a "concentration camp" may be a wee bit incendiary, but I believe it's more out of ignorance than malice, and he never told Israel what it SHOULD do. I support Paul. I donated to his 2008 and 2012 campaigns, and will donate more when I can.
For the record, I don't endorse any candidate. Nevertheless, I came to defend Newt after the HuffPo article.
He may have been a disgrace of a human being in the past, but is clearly sorry for his actions.
Like Glenn Beck, I think Santorum or Bachmann would be better for Israel, but unlike Beck, I don't think Newt would be so bad.
As far as Paul is concerned, ideally, America butting out of Israel's way would be nice, but forcing that upon them is cruel. There are too many things about Paul that I don't like and nor should any Jew for that matter.
Re: US Presidents in general:
There has never been a truly pro-Israel Executive Branch of government. Judging by G-d's track-record, I'm not sure that will change. He has His reasons which are unknown to us - but we have our job to do, which is to vote for the pro-Israel candidate. But I'm not naive to think that pro-Israel candidates will turn out to be pro-Israel presidents. Leiv Melachim Beyad Hashem, as they say, so whoever we vote for, it may not make a bit of difference. That doesn't mean we shouldn't vote - as Hishtadlut is necessary.
Bottom line is Halacha: Esav Sonei LeYaakov and Al Tivtihu Bindivim, so we need to vote for the candidate that will do the least harm and then pray, pray, and keep praying - since we only have our Father in Heaven to rely upon.
Shimshon: It is interesting that you donated to Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign. So did a whole bunch of neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Perhaps the Mr. (or is it Dr.) Paul that you are thinking about is his more principled son Rand. As far as his dear old dad is concerned, it appears that Daddy Paul (Ron) seems not to have the stench simply of Esav but the stench of Amalek. But since the Yichus to Amalek is patrilinear, I would not trust his son Rand either even though up to this point, Rand has seemed to demonstrate that he personally is not an anti-Semite like his daddy. I would be more careful if I were you about who is the recipient of your campaign donations. It could be someone whose most intelligible word is "oink".
Dov, are you serious? That's all you've got? The man, practically the only man in politics, who unconditionally defended Israel's right to bomb Osirak? Come on.
The good doctor (and that's exactly who I mean) also receives more money from soldiers than every other candidate of ANY party, combined. Do you think he "hates the troops" too?
Israel National News has published several positive articles about Ron Paul. Various members of Manhigut Yehudit have also praised his positions on Israel.
Maybe INN and MY are dens of neo-Nazi activity too?
This character assassination by association is juvenile and immature (and pathetic). I read that article when it came out, FOUR years ago. Is that the best you can do?
Yaak, "sorry for his actions?"
Which ones? There are so many! The serial affairs (did he apologize to the wives he left)? Doing a commercial with Pelosi (in 2009!) on global warming? For praising the bailouts?
Awesome Ron Paul interview on Israel (and recent too):
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/paul-israel-support-wead/2011/12/07/id/420247
Newsmax: What then, if anything, should we do for Israel?
Ron Paul: We should share intelligence for mutually agreed-upon goals. We should HONOR OUR PLEDGE TO REFUSE ANY ARMS SALES THAT WOULD UNDERMINE ISRAEL'S QUALITATIVE MILITARY EDGE [emphasis mine] in the region.
Dov and Yaak, why don't you read up on what arms sales pretty much every US president signed off on to Israel's enemies. And look just how quickly those enemies are expanding. Makes one wish Paul was in office in 1979 when the treaty with Egypt was signed. Egypt would never have gotten a dime, or a modern US-trained and equipped military, from a President Paul.
Shimshon: It is strange that he receives money from men in the military. Daddy Paul condemned the taking out of Bin Laden the very day that he announced for President!! What a chutzpah to condemn the Navy seals who did Bin Laden in! He seemed more concerned about Pakistani sovereignty than he did about the innocent blood of 3000 dead Americans. The man is or at least seems to be a nut job who sees no need for POTUS to use his constitutionally granted authority to defend American lives overseas with a short term military order or strike. Or does he have more nefarious hatreds to explain why he is so concerned about the rights of America's wonderful ally, Pakistan?
With such a laudable defense on his part for saying that Israel could bomb Osirak, I have one question. Why did he condemn the Israeli soldiers for defending themselves during last year's Turkish flotilla?? Glenn Beck asked the question. "If an American soldier were in the same situation, would that soldier not shoot to defend himself?" That is what one might call empathy for another person's extenuating circumstances. It usually leads to sound moral judgement, something that Dr. Daddy Paul is sorely lacking.
Dov, considering that every soldier swears an oath to the Constitution, just like the president and everyone in Congress, do you think that Paul is right or wrong to condemn an unconstitutional hit ordered by the president? I doubt he condemned the SEALs as you assert. He simply doesn't think like that. He never devolves the personal level (unlike you, I might add). He condemned the order.
And while you possessed enough skepticism to be willing to call Bush "Gog," for some reason you really believe the government's assertion that it was OBL who was indeed killed. Newsflash: governments lie. Don't believe them and you'll be right more often than wrong.
What I find ironic in all of this is...
You insinuate that Ron Paul is some demented Nazi, yet so intent is he on world domination that he is actually calling for a retrenchment of the most militaristic government on earth right now. Come on. The US spends more than 50% of world military expenditures. How much American weaponry would other nations be able to buy without subsidies in the form of cheap and/or guaranteed loans, courtesy of the US government? Very few. Even ones with oil, like the Saudis. With a vastly reduced US military budget (itself a subsidy that helps lower weapons costs for other states) as well as a complete end to subsidies, only countries rich enough and determined enough will be able to afford to maintain military superiority. Yes, I mean specifically Israel here.
So, here is Ron Paul, actually calling on Eisav-incarnate (the most militaristic nation on earth, remember? also, the biggest prison population, and many other dubious firsts) to lay down its weapons, and we have Jews here actually egging Eisav on to keep up the wars and destruction. You guys are truly sick.
When I see the lack of human decency combined with arrogance, one of the truest signs of Amalek, you are right. I see a pig, and I have a deep sense of contempt for pigs. When Ron Paul condemned Israel after the Turkish flotilla for doing at least no worse than what he would do if he were presented as POTUS with the same extenuating circumstances, I looked and listened to Ron and saw and heard a pig. His contempt for Israel went viral all over Youtube. So I have as much contempt for him as he has for me. It is hard to be intellectual about the presence of Amalek in the world. It should make one sick.
The Newsmax interview was interesting to say the least. I must say that Ron Paul is trying to sound more like his son, Rand, when talking about Israel everyday. Rand Paul is a man who deserves respect. But Amalek's attributes do not necessarily show up in the next generation. In the case of Haman, he lived over 500 years after his distant ancestor Agag. Who knows if the intervening generations displayed the same arrogance and indecency that we can plainly see in Agag and Haman. So Rand has cleaned up his father's act in his own life and apparently is giving advice to dear old dad.
If we can assume for one minute that Bin Laden did not die from not getting dialysis during the Battle for Tora Bora years ago, then please tell us all why it was unconstitutional to take out Bin Laden earlier this year. I fail to understand the argument.
The only thing that can be added is that if George W. had the right to correctly consider putting a bullet in Bin Laden's head after he could not capture him for trial after 9/11, then obviously it would have been proper bring in for trial or to put a bullet in Arafat's head 6 months later after the Pesach massacre. And that is where Gog W. was also a hypocrite although he was less arrogant about it than Ron Paul.
There is just way too much fissel chazer in the Presidency of the US. Perhaps because it is either Esav or Lavan or some combination of the two, fissel chazer should be expected from American Presidents. That is why Gingrich is a breath of fresh air. With Newt one gets the sense that at least in foreign policy, there is no fissel chazer.
Like I wrote elsewhere, there is NOT ONE MAN running for President that is good for America!
But, HaShem will pick the winner, who will be (the) instrument-al in bringing the Geula ... And that may be the big "O"
Debka has an article on
Iran offering the Saudis nuclear help!
Good Grief!
Shimshon, what's with all the Anti-Americanism? What do you think would have happened after World War 2 had it not been for the USA? You would have had either the third reich or the USSR running the world, is that something you would have liked? The Holocaust would have been 100 times worse. Why are there some religious jews who hate America so strongly? They should really be ashamed of themselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home