Okay, this is an aside from what I’m supposed to be posting on, but since I’m back to posting again I need to keep up with current events. I saw this brief article in The Daily Star, a Lebanese English-language newspaper (which is known for being fairly impartial,) reporting comments by Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich on Palestine and Palestinians, during the Republican presidential debate back on the 26th:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jan-29/161430-invented-palestinian-confronts-gingrich-report.ashx#axzz1ksh24ewL
Just to verify the quotes I found the video of the debate on YouTube, here:
I specifically wanted to comment on Gingrich’s quote because of the ignorance it suggests about the situation on the ground:
“My goal for the Palestinian people would be to live in peace, to live in prosperity, to have the dignity of a state, to have freedom. And they can achieve it any morning they are prepared to say, ‘Israel has a right to exist. We give up the right to return. And we recognize that we’re going to live side by side. Now let’s work together to create mutual prosperity.’”
If Gingrich had read much of anything on the Middle East–even a basic classic like From Beirut to Jerusalem–he’d know that most Palestinians asking for “right of return” are not those living inside the borders of what was originally designated to be Palestine, (those who would be the primary beneficiaries of the two-state solution he seems vaguely to be advocating) but in refugee camps in neighboring countries like Syria and Lebanon. I can’t speak for the other states where there are Palestinian populations, but here in Lebanon, they have virtually no rights, are terribly poor, and are often openly despised. Gingrich seems to think that Palestinians are refugees and non-citizens here by their own choice, and that if they’d just settle down and stop clamoring to return to their original homes, they would be quietly absorbed into the surrounding population, (from which he apparently believes they actually originated.)
Well, regardless of what Gingrich believes about the origins of the Palestinian people, what matters is what Lebanon, et al. perceive those origins to be. And Lebanon, at least, is not about to grant citizenship to its Palestinians, nor, I’m pretty sure, is Syria. (Jordan actually has, I believe, but they are well-known to be an exception in their dealings with both Palestinians and Israel.) So if the Palestinians living here in Lebanon give up their “right of return,” where exactly is Mr. Gingrich suggesting they find “prosperity” or “freedom,” much less “the dignity of a state”? Does he suppose that, given the rest of his Middle-East policy, he’s going to have enough clout to pressure Lebanon and Syria into accepting them? HAH. Or perhaps he thinks, once he’s got an independent Palestinian state established, then all those refugees can somehow squeeze into the West Bank and Gaza? (There goes the “prosperity” part, for sure. And what makes him think they’d be any more welcome there?) It sounds to me like he’s just using the age-old tactic of throwing in a lot of “feel-good” words to garner votes from people who don’t listen too closely.
Let me be clear: I am not trying to “take sides” in this matter, generally speaking. Nor do I wish the tenor of this blog to be heavily political. And I realize I am commenting on only one part of a much longer debate segment. But Gingrich’s ignorance is somewhat astounding. And he wants to be President of the United States?! When I, of all people, know more about such an important issue than my potential president, I get a little scared. I hope he finds time to read a couple books before he starts tinkering around with international relations in earnest.
I’m sick of politicians (and people in general) who don’t seem to realize that problems which hang around for a long time are still there because they are complicated, not because nobody before has thought up the inanely simple solutions such politicians suggest.
