Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: joseffy who wrote (61913)	12/13/2011 1:27:51 AM
From: sandeep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

He spoke the truth.every country is made up..

To: joseffy who wrote (61913)	12/13/2011 8:13:08 AM
From: mazel-tov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

I am not sure where we disagree. I acknowledged that Gingrich was correct in stating that historically Palestine is a creation of relatively recent vintage. Several other countries in the Middle East were also "artificial" creations from the Ottoman and British Empires. The same is true for countries in other parts of the world. It is the artificial nature of these creations that is frequently the cause of territorial disputes. My points were two-fold and both are opinions: first, I don't believe that any useful purpose was served by Gingrich in citing this fact. It is accepted US policy over several administrations that the resolution of the Israeli/Palestine dispute will be through the creation of a Palestinian state. Israeli leaders from the major Israeli political parties accept this. Gingrich went on to condemn the terrorism practised by Palestinians - which, of course, has nothing to with the historical basis for Palestine. Would terrorism be justified by a historical rationale for Palestine? One has nothing to do with the other. So what was Gingrich's motivation? IMO, it was pure and simple grand-standing with a view to currying favor with Jewish voters and done in typically Gingrich fashion with bombast and a lack of concern of its implications for Israel and peace in the region. I don't believe for a moment that Gingrich is any more committed to Israel than Romney or Bachmann or Santorum. In fact, I have no doubt that if Gingrich became president and his reputation could be enhanced by forging a peace in the region, he would not hesitate to do so even if was to the detriment of Israel's security. I would unhesitatingly select Romney, Bachmann or Santorum as being more likely to safeguard Israel's security interests than Gingrich.