In addition to smacking around uppity media hacks, Newt has a nifty track record of voicing strong opinions on a wide variety of topics.
For instance, in 2005 he put his brilliant thought to pen in an illuminating treatise for the Middle East Quarterly. Just for kicks, let’s give his Israeli/Palestinian views a small tumble.
The Palestinians entered their war with Israel as a relatively wealthy, educated, and cosmopolitan people. They were in some ways among the most international and most advanced people in the Arab world. The long conflict has destroyed their hopes for a better future, left them without a viable economy, and for too long, left them without responsible leadership.
Hold on a minute, I thought Palestinians were an invented people?
For the Palestinians, this should mean a democratic Palestinian state under the rule of law and the right to pursue health, prosperity, and freedom.
Oops.
Israeli negotiators began engaging Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as a result of the 1987-91 Palestinian intifada. But, the Arab League, European Union, and, eventually the U.S. State Department, instead pushed for the Palestine Liberation Organization leadership, long exiled and resident in Tunisia, to be recognized as the voice of the Palestinian people. That decision effectively purged local Palestinians—who had a self-interest in a durable peace—from the process. Gangs and vigilantes loyal to Arafat often intimidated and even murdered those Palestinians who sought to raise an independent voice. Ignoring warnings about the nature of their Palestinian negotiating counterpart, the Israeli government supported the creation of a 15,000-man Palestinian police force, composed largely of terrorist cadres and armed with modern weapons. Israel accepted this in the belief that these Palestinian police would hunt down and stop the terrorists.
Is Newt saying foreign nations should refrain from meddling in Israeli/Palestinian issues rather than make the situation worse? He was certainly no fan of the Oslo Agreements and everybody had a thumb in that sloppy mess. To be fair, old Newt goes on quite sensibly for several paragraphs before once again deviating from the standard conservative line.
Third, it is important to recognize that the vast, but intimidated, majority of the Palestinian people would like to live in safety, health, prosperity, and freedom. Most Palestinians do not want their children living in war-torn neighborhoods surrounded by poverty and devastation. They do not want to live their lives under the heel of a corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictatorship.
Then he totally loses his mind, jumps the narrow neo-con fence and breaks out with his special brand of visionary ideas profane idiocy that would see him righteously lynched by the Weekly Standard and NRO crew.
While Israelis have the right of self-defense, Washington should impose three limitations on Israel: first, the White House should insist that a free hand in building a security fence does not mean a free hand to expand the Israeli settlements in a land grab. The U.S. government should become the protector of the Palestinian people’s right to have a decent amount of land and to have continuous communications and travel between their areas.
The desire of some Israelis to use security as an excuse to grab more Palestinian land should be blocked by Washington even if that requires employing financial or other leverage to compel the Israeli government to behave reasonably on the issue of settlements. It is vital to our credibility in the entire Middle East that we insist on an end to Israeli expansionism.
It is vital to our humanitarian duty to the Palestinian people that we protect the weaker party from the stronger power. It is vital that the world sees that our total support for Israeli security is not matched by a one-sided support for more extreme Israeli territorial goals.
Second, the U.S. government should actively support a democratic Palestinian state. There are a number of Israeli politicians who would be willing to see the negotiations carried on forever. In their view, there is no reason to have a Palestinian state. They are in their own way the equivalent of those Palestinians who believe Israel can be coerced into a right of return for Palestinians even if it would mean the end of Israel.
Oh my.
Newt closes this grand plan of blind arrogance with his usual combination of unorthodox idiocy and a few practical grains of common sense.
Truly, this bit of Newtonian bullshit sounds fairly reasonable to me, but then Israel isn’t a major concern of mine. I wish the country well, but don’t spend much time contemplating their complex internal issues and couldn’t give a rip about Palestinians one way or the other.
So what changed Newt’s reasonably moderate 2005 Israeli/Palestinian political stance into a demagogic fury come 2011?
Money of course. $13 million dollars to be precise.
Sheldon Adelson started funneling cash towards Newt’s lobbying endeavors the year after this article was published. Adelson recently poured $5 million into the former speaker’s empty campaign coffers to prop up his back runner’s flagging presidential candidacy.
One thing we know for sure about Gingrich’s conservative, core ideological values; the man stays bought if his pockets are jingling. The healthcare industry and Freddie/Fannie found that out first hand.
Looks like Adelson bought himself one hell of a dog whistle loyal politician.
I wonder if Callista can say the same.