The Palestinian Authority said last week to the British daily The Guardian that US presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's critique of the PA was based on information he quoted from Palestinian Media Watch's website.
To clarify PMW findings, and what was correct and incorrect in Gingrich's remarks, PMW wrote an op-ed that was published in The Jerusalem Post, December16, 2011 :
The American congressional candidates were correct in criticizing the PA for promoting terror
US presidential candidate and the former speaker of US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich said this week that the Palestinian Authority does not recognize Israel's right to exist and that Palestinian schoolbooks teach children to become terrorists. Gingrich cited what he said were PA sources to back up his remarks.
However, the PA has rejected his statements as "groundless."
According to the British daily The Guardian: "Palestinian officials said Gingrich's allegations were based substantially on material produced by an Israeli organization, Palestinian Media Watch, which has published a long list of entries on its website (palwatch.org) under the heading 'Promoting Violence for Children.' An article [on PMW's website] from 2007 describes Palestinian textbooks paid for with US aid money that deny Israel's right to exist.
"But Xavier Abu Eid, a senior adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization, said the website and Gingrich's allegations were groundless." (December 11, 2011)
Certainly the PA's rejection of the US candidate was expected, as his charges contradict what the PA has been telling Western countries for years.
This is not merely an irrelevant distraction and rhetoric of a presidential campaign. It is these issues - PA non-recognition of Israel and its support of terror - that are at the heart of the peace process and constitute a major impediment to its success. Therefore, it is critical to determine who is correct - Gingrich or the PA.
What exactly was said about the PA? Read the rest on:
No comments:
Post a Comment