This week Republican Presidential candidates (except for Ron Paul who was not invited because of his “misguided and extreme views”) paraded before a conference of the Republican Jewish Coalition to express their undying loyalty to the State of Israel. Newt Gingrich, the current front runner for the Republican nomination, stood out from the crowd by signaling his intention to overturn long standing US policies on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Among other things he promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a step that has long been opposed by almost all of the international community. However, his most interesting comments occurred in an interview with The Jewish Channel which was posted on-line on Friday.
In this interview he said, "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.” This statement has been interpreted by many as questioning long standing US policy supporting a two state solution to the situation. The two state solution has been sustained since the early 1990’s by both Republican and Democratic administrations despite growing evidence that facts on the ground make it no longer viable.
Many historians trace the concept of Palestinian national identity to the 1800’s when the Palestinians revolted against their Ottoman Turkish overlords. Clearly there is now a strong sense of Palestinian national identity created by the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. The whole debate harkens back to a 1969 statement by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian”.
It is, however, the implications for the two state solution policy that make this discussion interesting. If there is “no such thing as a Palestinian”, is there any need for a Palestinian state? If there is no Palestinian State, will there be a bi-national state for all residents of historical Palestine? If Palestinians can “go many places”, should they be forced out of a Jewish State in Palestine? Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Director of the pro-Israel think tank, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, recognized the consequences of these positions when he said if Mr. Gingrich believes the positions “as implied in his language, then he's not pro-Israel at all."
While being a “front runner” in the Republican primary race is a precarious position, if Mr. Gingrich can maintain this position, it should provoke an interesting, and much needed debate about U.S. Middle East policy.
(Photo from Al Jazeera English)
No comments:
Post a Comment