For all the hawkish Mideast rhetoric among the GOP presidential field, Newt Gingrich is quickly distinguishing himself for right-wing stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the latest such posturing, the former House speaker cited an example of Palestinian incitement against Israelis — a real issue, but just not quite in the fact-free way Gingrich confidently spoke of in last week’s Republican debate.

Gingrich was asked about his earlier remark, plucked from “an ideological tract disguised as history,” that Palestinians are an “invented” people — a view he hasn’t walked back, but qualified with support for a two-state solution to the conflict. At last week’s GOP presidential debate, however, Gingrich doubled down and declared of the Palestinians, “These people are terrorists.” He went on:

They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, ‘If there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?’ We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It’s fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, enough lying about the Middle East.

Watch a video of Gingrich’s remarks at the debate:

Gingrich invoked truth and spoke with certainty. But an Associated Press fact check of his quite specific claim — that U.S. money pays for school textbooks that teach math by counting Jewish deaths — found it didn’t check out:

Three researchers — [George Washington University political scientist Nathan] Brown, Itamar Marcus from Palestinian Media Watch and Eldad Pardo from IMPACT-SE — said the example Gingrich cited in the Dec. 10 Republican debate does not exist in the texts. Gingrich’s office did not respond to two emailed requests for further comment.

Incitement in the Mideast conflict is a complicated and serious issue, and it’s an impediment to peace. By making false claims about incitement, Gingrich cheapens the discourse on this serious issue.

The full AP article describes religious schools in Occupied Palestinian Territory — constituting about 750 Palestinian students of the Territories’ 1.6 million students — that glorify martyrdom. A study found that government schools, which teach more than 700,000 students, had two examples of anti-Jewish sentiments in their textbooks, but the largest concern was that the Israeli national narrative was omitted from the books.

Last year, the Washington Institute For Near East Policy (WINEP) noted some progress against Palestinian incitement in textbooks, while important areas of concern persist. “We need to recognize what needs to be improved and recognize and praise the progress that’s been,” WINEP chief Robert Satloff said. “We need to stay away from hysteria and its opposite, whitewash.”

With the death of Kim Jong-Il, the eccentric despot who ruled North Korea since the early 1990s, news accounts rely on unreliable reports and broadcasts from state television in the secretive communist country. Early indications point to, as the New York Times reports, the reins of the state being handed to Kim Jong-Il’s youngest son:

Within hours of the announcement on Monday of his father’s death, North Korea’s ruling Workers Party released a statement calling on the nation to unite “under the leadership of our comrade Kim Jong-un.”

The younger Mr. Kim was also named head of the committee that will oversee his father’s funeral on Dec. 28 — a move that some analysts interpreted as evidence that the transfer of power to the son was proceeding smoothly, at least in the first days.

But Kim Jong Un, whose rank was officially upgraded from “Brilliant Comrade” to “Great Successor,” remains largely a mystery. Secretive to the core, even Kim Jong Un’s exact age is unknown — he’s thought to be in his late 20s, which would make him the youngest ruler ever of a nuclear-armed nation. He attended boarding school in Switzerland for a few years under an assumed name, and likes basketball, particularly the Chicago Bulls and L.A. Lakers.

The younger Kim only emerged from obscurity in October of last year, when his father, with approval of the ruling Workers’ Party, named him as successor. Since then, Kim Jong Un accompanied his father on tours giving “guidance” to factory workers and other public events like military parades and massive state-organized dance festivals. But some think the short period of public visibility for the younger Kim — he reportedly was only groomed for three years — may indicate a potential weakness in his rule. On Al Jazeera English television, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill said:

Kim Jong-il was actually groomed by his father to be ruler for more than 20 years. But Kim Jong Un has a long way to go.

One thing pundits seem certain about, however, is that — contra the hopes of politicians for an end to North Korean suffering and regime change — things are unlikely to change that much under Kim Jong Un.

“Surely, one might think, his years spent in the West will have made North Korea’s future ruler painfully aware of just how backward his country is,” wrote Christian Caryl on the New York Review’s website last year. “So does Kim Jong Un’s appointment offer grounds for optimism? Not really.” Caryl explains that the ruling cadre that surrounds the Kims — which is also shrouded in mystery — is unlikely to allow any significant movement in the system. Indeed, Kim Jong Un, according to some analysts, might be overshadowed by his own uncle, Jang Sung Taek, a powerful figure in the Party.

A period of great uncertainty awaits North Korea, and judging by the highly secretive government there, we may never fill in all the blanks about this nuclear-armed mystery youth, Kim Jong Un, and what his leadership will mean.

As clashes between security forces and demonstrators at Cairo’s Tahrir Square that have left at least 10 dead and hundreds injured entered a fourth day, the country’s military rulers face a new round of scrutiny and criticism both from within and without. After this weekend’s clashes, which produced shocking photographs and videos of demonstrators being beaten by security forces, even the Muslim Brotherhood — usually a cautious ally of the military government with, as the most popular political organization, a stake in peaceful elections — had strong words about the government’s inability to contain violence.

Now, questions are being raised outside Egypt, too. Both the U.S. and the United Nations weighed in on the clashes in statements. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released as statement yesterday expressing “concern,” urging protesters to remain peaceful and accountability for government violence:

I am deeply concerned about the continuing reports of violence in Egypt. I urge Egyptian security forces to respect and protect the universal rights of all Egyptians, including the rights to peaceful free expression and assembly. We call upon the Egyptian authorities to hold accountable those, including security forces, who violate these standards. Those who are protesting should do so peacefully and refrain from acts of violence.

Also on Sunday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a statement of “alarm” at the “excessive use of force” deployed by the authorities:

The Secretary-General is highly alarmed by the excessive use of force employed by the security forces against protesters and calls for the transitional authorities to act with restraint and uphold human rights, including the right to peaceful protest.

The Secretary-General underlines the importance of an atmosphere of calm to support Egypt”s electoral process as part of its transition to democracy and the early establishment of civilian rule.

Over the weekend, the government denied that security forces were using violence, even as a first-hand report from the New York Times spoke of people both with and without uniforms chucking pieces of concrete down on protesters outside the Interior Ministry. Now, an officer from Egypt’s ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces says the protests are a “systematic” attempt to, as the BBC put it, “sabotage the country’s security and provoke the army.”

Nearly half of Air Force drone pilots reported high stress levels in a new survey. The stress, linked to long and erratic work hours and a dramatic increase in the use of drones, leads to “high operational stress” for Reaper, Predator and Global Hawk drone pilots. A smaller number — including approximately a quarter of Global Hawk operators — exhibited signs of “clinical stress,” defined as anxiety, depression or stress severe enough to affect an operator’s family life or job performance.

Drone operators fly missions over Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Iraq from bases in Nevada and California. The study — conducted by the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio — found that frequent shift-changes, “mind numbing” monotony, and increasing workloads contributed to the heightened stress levels. Between 65 and 70 percent of drone operators with symptoms of mental illness were not seeking treatment.

The dramatic growth in the use of drones in recent years has led the Air Force to increase the number of drone pilots but the ratio of pilots to drones remains low. The Pentagon has about 7,000 aerial drones and about 1,100 drone pilots. “There’s just not enough people,” Wayne Chappelle, an Air Force psychologist who helped conduct a six-month study of drone operators from 2010 to 2011, told USA Today. “You have to constantly sustain a high level of vigilance, both visual and auditory information, and that would be really tough to do when there’s a lot of monotony.”

While Lt. Gen. Larry James, Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, told USA Today that he didn’t think instances of pilot error could attributed to high stress levels among drone operators, instances of pilot error and civilian deaths have increased as drone mission over Afghanistan and Pakistan increase.

In April, a Predator done killed a Marine and a medic in what appeared to be the first case of “friendly fire” from a drone. And in late October, the drone program drew more negative publicity after 16-year-old Tariq Aziz and his cousin were killed in a drone strike one day after attending a “Waziristan Grand Jirga,” an official meeting, to discuss the impact of drone strikes on communities in Pakistan.

The death of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il over the weekend marked a pretty difficult year for the world’s dictators. State television said Kim Jong-Il died on Saturday, Dec. 17, 2011. As it turns out, exactly one year earlier, a young Tunisian named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire after he was banned from selling fruit to earn a living. Bouazizi’s brave move set off a wave of protests throughout Tunisia and the region, now known as the Arab Spring. Here’s a run-down of deposed dictators and autocrats since January:

January 14: Tunisia’s president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia after weeks of mass protests. On June 20, Ben Ali and his wife were tried and convicted in absentia on theft charges and sentenced to 35 years in prison. Saudi Arabia has refused to extradite. Tunisians went to the polls in October to elect a new government in voting that international observers are calling remarkably free and fair.

February 11: Egyptian pro-democracy demonstrations ousted President Hosni Mubarak after weeks of protests inspired by the events in Tunisia. While Egypt faces new rounds of violent turmoil after recent parliamentary elections, the next session of Mubarak’s trial is set for this month.

April 11: Côte d’Ivoire President Laurent Gbagbo was forced from power after refusing to relinquish the presidency after losing an election in November 2010. Gbagbo has been transferred to the International Criminal court where he faces four charges of crimes against humanity.

October 20: Libyans joined the Arab Spring fervor in mid-February. NATO-assisted rebels took the capital Tripoli in August, and the forces of Libya’s new government captured and killed former leader Muammar Qaddafi in what the ICC recently said could be considered a war crime. Elections are expected to be conducted next year.

November 23: After months of Arab Spring inspired protests, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh signed a deal in which he would step down and “transfer his powers to his deputy ahead of an early election and in return will get immunity from prosecution.”

December 17: Exactly one year after a Tunisian vendor set himself on fire, sparking a wave of fallen autocracies throughout the region, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il dies. However, there are currently no hopes for transfer to a democratic system in the communist country as Kim Jong-Il’s son, Kim Jong Un is expected to take over leadership.

Of course, while not technically considered a “dictator” or the leader of any particular country, it wasn’t a great year for al Qaeda No. 1 Osama bin Laden, who was killed in a Navy SEAL raid on May 1.

So if 2011 wasn’t exactly the year of the despot, will the trend continue in 2012? A near civil war in Syria threatens President Bashar al-Assad’s rule there; mass backlash against rigged elections in Russia is getting larger; and in Iran, the Green Movement hasn’t entirely disappeared.

In the confrontational, climactic scene of the the classic 1964 Cold War film Seven Days in May, President Jordan Lyman barks a question in frustration at Gen. James Mattoon Scott, the leader of a right-wing military conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government. “Why in the name of God don’t you have any faith in the system of government you’re so hell-bent to protect?” says the president, slamming his hand on the table. A much toned down version of this drama plays out today, too. Only now it’s the generals — the top brass, no less — using strong language to remind politicians of the delicacies of the American republic.

Perhaps taking their cues from Congress or neocon websites, GOP presidential candidates long ago settled on a battle cry against President Obama’s national security record: the almost universal theme that the President should do to what the generals tell him. Texas governor Rick Perry said it about Afghanistan and Iraq. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said it about reinstating Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (many generals were for the repeal). Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said he would do what the generals want on Afghanistan, before backing down. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich went the other way, reversing his support for civilian control in favor of wondering why Obama “overrule(d) all his generals.”

But during a press availability while traveling in Saudia Arabia, the top U.S. military officer sang a different tune, using harsh language to describe the talking point about deferring national security and war decisions to the generals. Asked about the line, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:

I’ll probably make news with this but I find some of those articles about divergence or control of the generals to be kind of offensive to me.

And here’s why. One of the things that makes us as a military profession in a democracy is civilian rule. Our civilian leaders are under no obligation to accept our advice; and that’s what it is. Its advice. It’s military judgments, it’s alternatives, it’s options. And at the end of the day, our system is built on the fact that it will be our civilian leaders who make that decision and I don’t find that in any way to challenge my manhood, nor my position. In fact, if it were the opposite, I think we should all be concerned.

Dempsey isn’t the first top military officer to tell politicians about the chain-of-command recently. This summer, the last two Joint Chiefs chairmen, Gen. David Petraeus, since retired and leading the CIA, and the now-retired Admiral Michael Mullen, explained the concept in hearings on Capitol Hill.

Yesterday, the last American convoy in Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait thereby officially ending the nine-year war. The last military flight out of Iraq occurred hours earlier from Imam Ali Air Base. “This is history being made,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Anthony Rock told the remaining airmen. “The last 62 airman coming out of the last base. The last fight, the last night for operation New Dawn on top of Iraqi Freedom,” he said.

“It’s awesome, it’s a great feeling,” said Airman First Class Damian Guardiola. “It’s great being a part of history, but it’s an even better feeling to be going home.” The Wall Street Journal has video of moments from the U.S. military’s last flight out of Iraq:

The other side of the good news about leaving Iraq is the tremendous toll the war has had on the United States in both blood and treasure. The Washington Post reported on the last combat fatality of the entire war. Army Spec. David Emanuel Hickman was killed on November 14 in Baghdad by a roadside bomb — the 4,474th U.S. service member to die in the war. The Post published a picture of Hickman resting at Al Asad Airbase in Al Anbar Province:

“it’s crazy that he died,” said a close friend to Hickman, “No matter your position on this war — if you’re for or against it — I think everybody thinks we shouldn’t have been over there anymore.”