Melanie Phillips on Newt Gingrich and his statement on invented ‘Palestinians’

This is a partial article from Melanie Phillips. The rest can be read

here:

US presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich (whose Lazarus-like trajectory to the Republican nomination I flagged up here a month ago) has recently demonstrated yet again Melanie’s First Rule of Modern Political Discourse – the more obvious the truth that you utter, the more explosive and abusive the reaction.

For Gingrich said the Palestinian Arabs were ‘an invented people’ – and the world promptly started hurling execrations at him, as if such a statement proved beyond doubt that Gingrich was indeed a dangerously extreme individual who, when it came to political positioning, was just off the graph altogether.

So just what did he say? This:

 

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

8 Replies to “Melanie Phillips on Newt Gingrich and his statement on invented ‘Palestinians’”

  1. The article linked to was an AP article but there was no actual reporting in it and it includes elements of editorializing that do not belong in a news article from a wire service. The “jornalist” quotes material from other outlets but does not interview anyone directly nor does any direct sort of research himself. It is propoganda masquerading as a news article.

    From the AP (Associated Palestinians as it should be now known) article:

    1 Gingrich’s remarks STRUCK AT THE HEART of Palestinian SENSITIVITIES about the RIGHTEOUSNESS of their STRUGGLE…

    Gee wizz, who uses meaningless language like that without ever backing it up with actual facts or statistics? And it was NOT a quote from anyone. The jornalistinian put that in all by himself. That was not a fact. It was not a quote from anyone. It was rhetoric only without a single word to back it up.

    2. “put him at odds not only with the international community but with all but an extremist fringe in Israel.” Says who? Nobody but the jornalistinain. He did not cite any poll or survey nor did he quote anyone who said that sentance.

    Also it is standard arab/islamist rhetoric, as well as basic propoganda to say how extreme ones enemy is and how almost nobody agrees with them. According to their propogandists anyone who doesn’t agree with them is “extreme”. They use this propoganda tactic because nobody wants to think of themselves as “extreme” so they will shy away from agreeing with whomever the propgandist lables as “extreme”.

    3 “Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, accused Gingrich of INCITEMENT.

    Who’s favorite word is that? Who always blames the victim?

    3 cont: “Mark my words … these statements of Gingrich’s will be the ammunitions and weapons of the bin Ladens and the extremists for a long, long time,” Erekat told CNN.”

    Extremists like you Mr. Erekat? You are certainly attempting making good use of those statements. Aside from rhetorical tactics, what else do you have in common with Al Quida?

    Also note that that quote was given to CNN, not the reporter writing this piece. Did this reporter actually interview anyone or cite any source that wasn’t published somewhere else?

    3 cont. That statement by Mr. Erekat is, in typical arabic manner, really an overt call for terrorists to use Mr. Gingrich’s statements as propoganda fodder and as yest another bogus cassus belli and not really the warning or admonishion he is pretending it is.

    The article ends with a few cherry picked quotes from a cherry picked historian. The historian is quoted but if you read carefully you will see he was not actually interviewed by the jornalistinian.

    “”There is no intelligent person today who argues about the existence of the Palestinian people,” Segev said.”

    Again, the propoganda technique of making a particular sides stance seem like it is held by the majority. Though there were different sides presented in the article the jorlalistinian chose to end it this way.

    Notice that there is no byline (name or names of contributing reporters) on this article. AP DOES include bylines but some outlets publish them and some do not so it is hard (but not impossible) to find out who wrote this. Arabs exploit this uncrediting of bylines to plant their propoganda thru AP while being hidden behind the wire services (rapidly diminishing) respectibility.

    I’m not suprised that the site linked to is The Guardian. I’ve read similar non articles from the Guardian before. Having an editorial policy and trying to influence opinion is fine if it’s done openly but the Guardian attempts it in a, dare I say it, STEALTHLY manner too often to be currently considered an honest news outlet.

    I hope any british readers who read this comment will write a strongly worded complaint to the Guardian for it’s printing of this editorial that is disguised as real jornalism.

  2. Just to be clear: The article I was talking about was the linked to article at the bottom of the post, linked to with the word “This” and NOT the Melanie Philips article linked to at the top of the post with the word “Here”.

  3. Ordinary everyday folk are not buying this perpetual victimhood, or this invention any more. The Palestinians, it would seem; are not victims of Israel but their own Islamically backed despotic, regimes throughout the ME who use them as pawns for political gain. It is so sad really!

    They have made it clear time and time again that they want Israel wiped off the face of the map, or to become extinct or subjugated like the dhimmi, Christian minorities and other minority groups throughout the ME. It is not about a plot of land, 9000 square miles or so, but rather the fact that: the mullah ridden masses do not seem to be able to live in peace side by side with Non Muslims anywhere.

  4. A nice dissection, Truthiocity.

    “put him [Gingrich] at odds not only with the international community but with all but an extremist fringe in Israel.”

    “”There is no intelligent person today who argues about the existence of the Palestinian people,” Segev said.”

    These assertions, the key parts of which are ‘extremist fringe’ and ‘no intelligent person’, exemplify one of the most sinister and potent fallacies deployed by collectivists of all stripes: the Argument from Intimidation. This fallacy is deployed by the morally and philosophically bankrupt as an effective means of promoting ideas that are rationally indefensible. And it works by silencing those whose premises and ideas, although correct and rationally unassailable, are second-hand. If one has not validated one’s premises and ideas by a process of rational thought, i.e., demonstrated their indisputable derivation from the facts of reality, one is unable to defend them effectively and thereby to refute the false claims advanced by one’s opponents. To avoid falling victim to the Argument from Intimidation, and to expose the moral and philosophical bankruptcy of those who deploy it, one has to be certain of one’s moral ground – certain in one’s own mind that one’s premises and ideas have their basis in fact.

    The classical example of the Argument from Intimidation is the story of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’. The field of modern art is another prime example.

  5. “it works by silencing those whose premises and ideas, although correct and rationally unassailable, are second-hand.”

    All ideas, thoughts and opinions are second hand to some degree.

    “one has to be certain of one’s moral ground – certain in one’s own mind that one’s premises and ideas have their basis in fact.”

    That is too tall an order as there is always room for doubt for a rational, mature and honest person. This is a critical weakness when having to deal with dishonest manipulative propogandists that may be more proffessional than they might at first seem.

    Furthermore merely being certain is not the same thing as being capable or prepared for debate with fundamentally dishonest operators.

    Any form of intimidation one is being ordered about not because of interest in facts but to put one on the defensive and make one submit in general to the will of the propogandist. Hustlers of all stripes first test you out by trying to get you to do or accept a small thing or probe you.

    So it is enough to realise when it is happening and to know to call the perpetraitor out for using sleazy rhetorical tricks. being an intellectual giant with an entirely thought out internal manifesto is a bit much to ask non obsessive people and unnesessary.

    Make them prove what they say. If they say “I am sure that would be offensive to 1.4 billion people”, The proper responce is NEVER, “oh I did not mean to be offensive”. The proper responce is “Nobody is interested in your conveniant fantasies. Show me the 1.4 billion entry long list of what the 1.4 billion people have said in responce to my statment or admit you are a lier”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*