Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Newt’s Palestinian comment was more than about history

Newt’s Palestinian comment was more than about history

Palestinian national identity as it currently is recognized was a reaction to the creation of Israel and most prominently the 1967 war when Israel captured territory controlled by Egypt and Jordan.  Newt Gingrich is under fire for stating this truth.

It doesn’t really change the equation on the ground, and there is an inexorable march towards Palestinians having a state in some portion of that former Egyptian and Jordanian territory, the questions being boundaries and militarization.

The importance of Gingrich’s comment was that it skewered a false historical narrative which dominates the international debate and is used for the demonization of Israel and its chief supporter, the United States.

Newt was absolutely correct to say enough already with the falsehood.  If it upset the Palestinians, well too bad.  It’s about time a prominent political figure in the United States didn’t just voice support for Israel but did so in a historically accurate manner which addressed the false Palestinian narrative of perpetual victimization.

The Palestinian issue also gave Newt what may turn out to be his most important moment in any debate, aligning himself with Ronald Reagan in refusing to be timid in the politically correct propaganda war being waged against us.

Dave Weigel saw what ensued as the winning moment for Newt:

His last full-on grapple with Romney came when the former governor attacked him, in a sort of more-in-sorrow-than-anger way, for saying that the Palestinians were an “invented people.” That, said Romney, was complicating things for Israelis.

“The Israelis are getting rocketed every day,” snorted Gingrich. “We’re not making life more difficult. The Obama administration is making life more difficult.” Plus, he was right on the facts. “Palestinian did not become a common term until after 1977.” That’s the sort of knowledge-bomb that Republicans dream of dropping on Obama—they feel like this is right, but here’s a candidate who can say so.

And then Gingrich closed the loop.

“I’m a Reaganite,” he said. “I’m proud to be a Reaganite. Even at the point of causing some confusion with the timid.”

Who was “the timid?” Whoever viewers thought it should be. Obama. Romney. The media. All of them, as far as they’re concerned, would lose in a showdown with Newt Gingrich. And this is how he won the debate.

Update: See my prior post, What If Palestinians Were Settlers?, for a history of the family of prominent anti-Israel Palestinian-American law professor George Bisharat.  While Bisharat writes moving articles about the loss of his ancestral home in Jerusalem, in fact his family was not indigenous to Jerusalem or even any part of what now is Israel.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I didn’t watch the debate last night, but this clip makes Romney and Paul look like Milquetoasts and Newt look like he’s a leader. I’m not a big fan of Newt, but at least he seems to be willing to hit back.

And “I’ve also known Bibi a long time?” Really?

It was a great explanation by Newt and the Perry comment was a bonus. As for the facts? Krauthammer has it about right I suspect:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285448/krauthammers-take-nro-staff

Winner winner chicken dinner!

I cannot wait’till the drooling, Palestinian appeasing elitists at the nyt and walk try and blast newt over this. It will just make me like him more.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

I cannot wait’till the drooling, Palestinian appeasing elitists at the nyt and wapo try and blast newt over this. It will just make me like him more.

Much as I hate give credit to the NYT, I find this Op-Ed reflects how I feel about Newt at the moment, in addition to being old enough to remember his speakership. Newt will not lose a debate, but: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/douthat-professor-gingrich-vs-professor-obama.html?ref=rossdouthat

High time somebody told those blackmailing bastards in the ME what for. When they hear something they don’t like they always threaten terror. I loved Newt’s response about how can we tell the difference. We need a POTUS who will tell the Arabs that of we get struck by terrorism, even the homegrown type, we’ll bomb you back into the Stone Age cuz its your ideology that’s fostering it.

[…] Dose of Reality Goes Down Hard Posted on December 11, 2011 8:03 am by Bill Quick » Newt’s Palestinian comment was more than about history – Le·gal In&middot… Dave Weigel saw what ensued as the winning moment for Newt: His last full-on grapple with Romney […]

Midwest Rhino (not RINO) | December 11, 2011 at 11:16 am

It seemed Newt was taking back some of the propaganda ground that had been given away as appeasement. “Terrorist” acts by the Palestinians or Hamas should be recognized and labeled for what they are. Ignoring it and pretending that “it is just status quo … let’s move on”, seems like appeasement.

Obama is acquiescing to the pretense that the Palestinians have ancestral rights, while Israel is only an imported people that should go back where they came from … Germany … as Albright stated. Iran supported the roadside bombers in Iraq, but Obama is afraid to go in and blow up our technology when the drone goes down.

And Obama expects the same treatment for himself when he “terrorizes” Boeing or border guards or the “racists” in the Tea Party. Lies and bullying seem to be the rules Obama understands. But Gingrich taking away that propaganda ground is somehow “insensitive”.

Midwest Rhino (not RINO) | December 11, 2011 at 11:30 am

and I’m not sure if Krauthammer is trying to spin against Gingrich here …

It shows he [Gingrich] knows his history. But if the implication is he is against a Palestinian state, the train has long left that station.

Ummm … he never said that Charles. You are dangling that question out there. Israel is ready to deal, Palestinians won’t even cede Israel’s right to exist, as I understand it. Newt is just pointing out the dishonesty that others are too timid to discuss.

Newt is right on this issue. I have searched on and off for years online for some historical fact that would prove there had been a palestinian state at any point in history ….ya know what I found ….zip…nada ….nothing ….so I can’t see how having never had a separate nation or government ever they can now make the claim they are entitled to something they have never had in the past

    Aggie95 in reply to Aggie95. | December 11, 2011 at 11:41 am

    Obama is a strong proponent of land for peace well for starters that was tried and now the muslims have a rocket base on their borders …and I wonder how the Amarican people would feel of all the native tribes here in the U.S. with huge international media props began a campaign to take back places like NYC ….Maine …..ND …..it seems to me they have a far more sound claim than the palestinian’s

Mah Feesh Filisteem (The Is No Palestine). Never has been, never will be.

Rich Vail
Pikesville, Maryland
http://thevailspot.blogspot.com

[…] says Robert Costa, describing Weigel’s analysis of the Romney-Gingrich encounter, which was quoted by Professor William Jacobson and cited by Bill “Gloat Zone” Quick.Newt Gingrich must be destroyed says Bob […]

Gingrich may well have neutralized Paul on foreign policy as well (not that Paul doesn’t do a good job of it on his own). Ron Paul was basically saying “yes, Newt, your’re right, but you’re wrong because I’m righter.” He was agreeing with the historical context but disagreeing with the current situation. Gingrich was saying enough is enough already.

The other candidates were trying to triangulate the issue while Gingrich went for the jugular. Gingrich nukes them all with the “I am a Reaganite,” “Evil Empire,” and “Tear Down This Wall” statements. It seemed like he was luring them in, letting them do the usual weak-kneed GOP Establishment thing, then *BAM* hit them with Reagan.

Their identity was confirmed with Black September when Hussein ejected them. Those people were and are poorly served by their leaders.

The two state solution failed primarily because it distinguished between individuals and groups by incidental features rather than common interests.

Yeah- and just to make sure the ‘Palestinian’ Arab diaspora don’t find contentment and peace as something else -i.e. Syrians, Jordanians, or Lebanese- those regimes have have kept the ‘Palestinian’ refugees of 1948 locked in shabby camps as political poker chips

Tells you right there if the Islamist agenda is more pro-‘Palestinian’or anti-Semetic… alas, nothing we didn’t already know

“… aligning himself with Ronald Reagan in refusing to be timid in the politically correct propaganda war being waged against us.”

What separates Newt from the pack is his being a potentially forceful, articulate catalyst in steering our national conversation in a better direction. We are at a bad point now where the social atmosphere is such that speaking the truth in public is often a huge liability, unless done with overwhelming and complete clarity (which is why it’s harder to be a conservative in daily life if you engage others in debate). With the articulation of the truth may come a shock of recognition to many … but that recognition means it’s not too late, and we may once again render the hard, cold truth discussable.

The way Newt should have closed the circle was to say that the terrorism we are all suffering from now is a direct result of the left trying to legitimize such acts by giving cover to movements that resort to such tactics. Whether it is the left embracing Bill Ayers or pretending that the Palestinians are anything other than a recent invention used for political purposes those who buy into such things are guilty of making terrorism a viable option. Everyone on that stage was guilty of that moral failure but Newt.

If the truth be known the only grievance the Arabs have is that Jews do not die quickly enough and in large enough numbers to suit them. Hamas even states as much in their charter.

    They are the quintessential comeback kids, aren’t they? It must be galling to Islamic imperialists and others who realize their faith in totalitarian ideology that the Jews keep rising from the ashes.

Cassandra Lite | December 11, 2011 at 2:06 pm

The fact that should end all argument is that the PLO was founded in ’64, when the West Bank and Gaza were the hands of Jordan and Egypt respectively, which means the only homeland Arafat et al cared about was Israel proper.

Obama did a lot of damage by insisting that negotiations begin with the 1949 border (AKA pre Six Day War border). The “Palestinians” need all the help they can get in accepting reality. Anything else is cat nip.

[…] December 11, 2011 | Filed under Israel,Middle East,Newt Gingrich | Posted by Rick RiceWilliam A. Jacobson comments on Newt Gingrich calling the Palestinians an invented people:Palestinian national identity as it currently is recognized was a reaction to the creation of […]

I yield to no one in my staunch support of Israel or my disgust at the reprehensible qualities of several generations of Palestinian Arab leaders.

Nonetheless, someone has to point out why Newt’s “invented” slap at Palestinian identity is a half truth that amounts to throwing a rhetorical bomb.

ALL the nations of the middle east are “invented” — specifically, invented by the victorious Allied powers after Turkey’s surrender at the end of World War II with their boundaries generally corresponding to the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement whereby those two powers divided military and occupation responsibility. That division was, in effect, ratified in the League of Nations Mandates that gave France control of what eventually became Syria and Lebanon and Britain control of what was termed “Palestine” and what was termed “Mesopatamia” (subsequently Iraq).

The British Mandate for Palestine originally encompassed all of what is now Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan. Britain soon divided this further for administrative purposes into Palestine and Transjordan. Subsequently, it established two brothers of the Hashemite tribe from Arabia who had lost out to the Sauds there on the thrones of Transjordan and Iraq. However, Transjordan did not become the independent Kingdom of Jordan until 1945.

The remaining Palestine Mandate was then partitioned by the United Nations — which then meant effectively the victorious World War II Allies — into a Jewish state and an Arab state of Palestine. The 1948 war erased that “Palestine” from the map by virtue of the occupation of its territory by either Israeli or Arab armies (mostly Jordan). The 1967 war put all of it in Israeli hands.

The point is that all the “nations” and their boundaries were created by the Western powers and only slightly altered by the later Arab-Israeli wars. So “Syrian,” “Iraqi,” “Lebanese,” and “Saudi,” “Kuwaiti” and others are every bit as much “invented” identities as Palestinian.

The Western state system, which emerged only in the wake of the 17th century Peace of Utrecht, is now the system embraced by all the world’s peoples. The Ottomon Empire, in contrast, was not a state but an agglomeration of territories loosely administered by Turkish pashas through local authorities who more or less paid homage to the Sultan because he was also the Muslim Caliph.

Israel owes its international legitimacy to the collapse of Ottoman power and the imposition of that state system, and one should always remember that the creation of an Arab state within Mandate Palestine was the sine qua non of the creation of a Jewish state.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to JEBurke. | December 11, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    You along with many people discussing this issue mix concepts. Gingrich did not say — contrary to what people like Chris Wallace said this morning on television — that the people we now call Palestinian should not get a state. To the contrary, his position is that there should be a two state solution to be negotiated. What he responded to and addressed was the notion that the Palestinians as a distinct ethnic and national group preexisted Israel’s existence. They were Arabs who were part of a greater community and who became a distinct group only when Israel came into existence and particularly after the 1967 war. This is historically accurate, even if uncomfortable. But it has nothing to do with whether the Palestinians get a state on a portion of the British Mandate not covered by Jordan and not Israel proper. The people who claim Newt didn’t understand are actually the ones responding to an argument he did not make. (This comment also is addressed to your comment below, as well.)

    Take a look at my prior post about the family history of prominent anti-Israeli Palestinian-American George Bisharat, https://legalinsurrection.com/2010/03/what-if-palestinians-were-settlers/

      “They were Arabs who were part of a greater community and who became a distinct group only when Israel came into existence and particularly after the 1967 war.”

      Yep, that’s what I heard him say. I never heard him say the two-state solution is off the table. Anybody who thinks Israel is not dying for peace (almost to the point of suicide by way of restraint and giving up land) needs his head examined … which, unfortunately, is a hell of a lot of people.

      Ironically, Palestinian comes from “Peleset” – a term used by the Egyptians around the year 1100 BC to describe “Sea People” who were “invading from foreign lands”.

      Now, Arabs have (in distant history) been a sea-faring people, but these Palestinians were also described as “Invaders”.

      The land in despite now, that which we call Israel, was considered part of the Egyptian Empire at the time though.

      So either Peleset does not refer to Arabs (and specifically, those who are now considered Palestinians), or the Peleset they take their name from were not naturally on the land to begin with and were instead a vicious invading people.

      .
      Side-notes
      – the “Kingdom of Israel” dates back to before the Egyptians use of this term. They too could not have been the Invaders, as they already lived there and would have been well known to the Egyptians
      – no one knows for sure who these Peleset were, but the Greeks are probably the most logical explanation proposed. I think it would be interesting to know if the non-Jews from the area at that time were actually a Jew-Greek cross-breed
      – the people called Palestinians now are actually descendants from the Arab invaders from around the year 700. They like to claim they are descendants of the original people in the area too, but that is difficult to make logic out of and were unlikely ever connected to the area until that time.

      I am well aware of the fact that Newt supports a two-state solution, but I am not mixing concepts.

      There is no Palestinian state nor has there “historically” to use Newt’s word ever been one, although there is agreement among all the interested parties that, on some basis, there should be one.

      It is this lack of a history of a Palestinian state that led Newt to observe that the concept of a Palestinian peoplehood or nationality is “invented,” the people calling themselves Palestinian having been a part of the broader Arab community.

      True as far as it goes but a half truth because it fails to put (dare I call it this) Palestine into the context of the post-Ottoman dispensation imposed on the region by the Allied powers and modified by the same powers after 1945.

      All of the nation-states of the region were created by the Western powers, all carved out of the broader Arab community. There was nothing cultural, linguistic, ethnic or otherwise to distinguish Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians or even most Lebanese from one another.

      Thus, being a Syrian or an Iraqi is an “invented” identity also — but no one, least of all Newt would contend that it is in some way less than legitimate for Iraqis to regard themselves as a distinctive people.

    beloved2 in reply to JEBurke. | December 12, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    “…Nonetheless, someone has to point out why Newt’s “invented” slap at Palestinian identity is a half truth that amounts to throwing a rhetorical bomb.

    ALL the nations of the middle east are “invented” — specifically, invented by the victorious Allied powers after Turkey’s surrender at the end of World War II with their boundaries generally corresponding to the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement whereby those two powers divided military and occupation responsibility…”

    If you would study the 5 books of the Pentatuech which is the history of the Jewish(Israel’s descendents) people, you would see where your premise is invalid, false. The Pentatuech is legally admissible evidence in a court of law. So the Israeli government could actually and legally demand a return to the Israel border of the eighth century B.C. Will they do that? Nah, they’re peacelovers at any cost, it seems. Israel was never invented, it was endowed by its creator with a certain land boundaries contained in the Pentatuech.http://books.google.com/books?id=b6XPcfjA1pIC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=Cartography+of+Canaan+and+Israel&source=bl&ots=N5-pOPa772&sig=lxHP9ZY2-u4FdVwN3bJveQRIRHE&hl=en&ei=SUnmTsTFCo3JiQKVuLjVBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Cartography%20of%20Canaan%20and%20Israel&f=false
    “Cartography in antiquity and the Middle Ages: fresh perspectives, new methods
    By Richard J. A. Talbert, Richard W. Unger”

    Dr. Gingrich, historian, made a truthful positive statement(outside of the fact that people are not invented, they are procreated). Palestinians are an invented(fabricated) identity of a certain group of Jordanians by an Egyptian, Arafat whose mission it was to enrich himself as a fabricated leader of refugees. He was the 4th richest man in the world when he died and the fantasy of Palestinians continue. Since the Palestinians are actually Jordanian (as is the Queen of Jordan) their state should be somewhere in the sandbox of Jordan. Plenty of sand in Jordan to go around.
    The West Bank(Judea and Samaria) which is actually the site of the holiest Jewish sites and the Samaritans(who have lived continuously there over 5,000 years) needs to be returned to Israel’s Jews.

I don’t know the history in detail like you, JEBurke, but when you speak of debt of international legitimacy bestowed, wouldn’t war declared and waged on Israel by the other side serve to render the other side’s legitimacy pertaining to any land thus lost null and void?

And I, personally, see Israel more as a payment of a debt owed by much of the world to the Jews, not the other way around.

Yes, miitary victory COULD weigh against the loser’s legitimacy or create or erase borders. However, in this case, IT DID NOT.

While the precise borders of any Palestinian state are a matter for dispute, EVERY authority accepts the existence of the Palestinians as a distinct people with a claim to some substantial portion of the territory of the former Mandate and a right to self-determination.

Israel accepts those principles, and has done so under every government since the creation of the State of Israel.

The United States accepts those principles and has done so under every administration since Harry Truman’s.

All of the world’s other great powers, every Arab state and more than a hundred other states accept those principles.

Indeed, since the creation of the Palestinian Authority more than 15 years ago, these principles have been applied to empower the PA to administer the Palestinian territories, which it has done WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE COLLABORATION OF ISRAEL despite the ongoing conflict with Hamas and threat of terrorism.

In short, there may not have been a Palestine a hundred years ago under the Ottomons, but there is one now. Not incidentally, if you look at a 1914 map of the world alongside a 2011 msp, you will see scores of borders changed radically and dozens of nations created.

    Milhouse in reply to JEBurke. | December 12, 2011 at 2:26 am

    Israel accepts those principles, and has done so under every government since the creation of the State of Israel.

    This is a blatant falsehood. The first Israeli government to acquiesce to the fiction that there is such a thing as a “Palestinian nation” and that it has some sort of rights was the Begin government in the Camp David Treaty. That was when the rot first set in, even though all Begin envisioned was autonomous areas under Israeli control. And the first Israeli government to accept the idea that these “Palestinians” should have an independent state was the Sharon government.

    The fact that there is no such thing as a “Palestinian nation”, and therefore that it cannot have national rights, is important to make, because it goes to the question of what a just solution would be like. What reason could there possibly be for creating a “Palestinian” state? One reason is as a concession for peace. In other words, a price paid to terrorists to stop being terrorists. Ransom. Protection money. If there were no terrorism then there would be no reason to give it to them. In that case, the terrorists are right; this is the only way they can achieve their goal, and giving them a state will only vindicate them. It follows that if terrorism can be suppressed by military and police work, then there will be no reason to establish such a state, any more than there is a reason to pay ransom after the kidnappers have been arrested and the hostage is free.

    But if there really is a “Palestinian nation”, whose historical homeland is Israel, then it follows that giving them a state is right and just. That it should be done regardless of terrorism, and that even if the terrorist threat is done away with for good such a state ought to be established. And that means that the terrorists are fighting for a just cause, even if one disagrees with their tactics. That is the insidious harm done by the lie that Gingrich repudiated. That is, I believe, why George W Bush, whose education on Middle Eastern affairs came from a few suspect individuals, was the first USA president to openly support the principle of a “Palestinian” state. The false history he was fed made him believe that this was a moral stand. And that is why the lie must be challenged.

      Darkstar58 in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2011 at 1:37 pm

      But if there really is a “Palestinian nation”, whose historical homeland is Israel, then it follows that giving them a state is right and just. That it should be done regardless of terrorism, and that even if the terrorist threat is done away with for good such a state ought to be established. And that means that the terrorists are fighting for a just cause, even if one disagrees with their tactics. That is the insidious harm done by the lie that Gingrich repudiated.

      If this were true, then would Muslims not also be able to claim, feel entitled to, and almost certainly demand, state-hoods in Russia, and all across Europe?

      Arabs spread everywhere during their first attempt to take over the world. If we were to start handing out state-hoods to every land we can find evidence of them visiting and/or attempting to control, there would hardly be anything we wouldn’t be handing them.

      The problem is, first you have to prove this so-called “Palestinian nation” actually existed – and its impossible to do. If you make believe it did, and give away land because of it, then they will merely continue to do the same thing in every land they have ever invaded – knowing that they were successful the first time they tried to play the game…

      Nope, that is why you rightfully dismiss the entire idea of a “Palestinian nation” as nothing more then a figment of imagination created in a propaganda war, then go to the table saying we can work something out because of the extraordinary circumstances regarding this specific area – but this land will be considered outside the “Kingdom of Israel” and “Kingdom of Judah” as history distinctly shows these areas should make up Israel of today

      JEBurke in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm

      You are simply flat out wrong. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Mandate Palestine — and let’s keep in mind that the 1947 UN was, in effect, the victorious Allied Powers who inherited responsibility for the League of Nations mandates — granted roughly half of the Mandate to an expicitly Jewish state and the other half to an expicitly Palestinian Arab state. The Jewish leadership of the soon-to-be declared Jewish state embraced this plan WITHOUT RESERVATIONS. Of course, the Arabs did not

      A few months later, on May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence, BASED ON THE UN PARTITION PLAN. As a result of the first war brought on by Arab rejection, Israel expanded the territory it controlled, and it annexed a substantial part of this territory. But of the territory assigned to the Arabs under the Partition Plan, including the West Bank, remained under Arab control until the 1967 war. Since then, Israel has controlled the West Bank but never explicitly or implicitly repudiated its acceptance of these territories as designated by the UN as Palestinian lands.

      This is a different matter from any Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state with specific borders which has always been since the 1948 war a matter for negotiation.

        Milhouse in reply to JEBurke. | December 12, 2011 at 10:57 pm

        Burke, you are full of it. The Jewish Agency accepted the partition offer in 1947, because it was better than nothing. The Arabs refused it and went to war, and that was the end of that offer. Once there was an Israeli government that could have a policy about anything, it absolutely rejected the idea of an Arab Palestinian state. Transjordan annexed Judaea, Benjamin, and Samaria, and renamed itself “Jordan”. Israel was ready to make peace with Jordan on the basis of those borders, but not with a separate “Palestinian” state. Until the mid-2000s it was anathema in Israeli politics to support a “Palestinian” state. Clinton couldn’t say openly that he supported one, and when his wife did say it she had to back down and apologise. Bush was the first US president, and Sharon was the first Israeli PM, to support the concept.

    ThomasD in reply to JEBurke. | December 12, 2011 at 9:49 am

    EVERY authority accepts the existence of the Palestinians as a distinct people with a claim to some substantial portion of the territory of the former Mandate and a right to self-determination.

    That is ONE HELL of a leap from

    There was nothing cultural, linguistic, ethnic or otherwise to distinguish Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians or even most Lebanese from one another.

    or

    There is no Palestinian state nor has there “historically” to use Newt’s word ever been one, although there is agreement among all the interested parties that, on some basis, there should be one.

    to say nothing of

    The point is that all the “nations” and their boundaries were created by the Western powers and only slightly altered by the later Arab-Israeli wars. So “Syrian,” “Iraqi,” “Lebanese,” and “Saudi,” “Kuwaiti” and others are every bit as much “invented” identities as Palestinian.

    The more you talk the less plausible you become. The only thing I must conclude is that you are clearly no AUTHORITY on the matter.

    As if there were ANY such SELECT group.

William A. Jacobson: Palestinian national identity as it currently is recognized was a reaction to the creation of Israel and most prominently the 1967 war when Israel captured territory controlled by Egypt and Jordan. Newt Gingrich is under fire for stating this truth.

Palestinian stamp, 1919
http://cdn7.fotosearch.com/bthumb/CSP/CSP594/k5944377.jpg

The concept of the nation state is a fairly new concept. Italy and Germany didn’t become nations until the 19th century. The U.S. didn’t become a nation until the 18th century, and they can hardly be considered a cohesive ethnicity.

Palestinians have very deep roots in the area, and have retained their identity going back tens of centuries.

    Midwest Rhino (not RINO) in reply to Zachriel. | December 11, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    Palestinians have very deep roots in the area, and have retained their identity going back tens of centuries.

    back to when Islam kicked out Christians by force, killing them or making them lesser subjects? But they were not “Palestinians”.

    As Krauthammer says …

    When the Arabs had control of what are now the Palestinian territories (1949-1967) – Jordan had the West Bank and Egypt had Gaza for 20 years – none of them recognized a Palestinian state. And they could have created overnight a Palestinian state [in the West Bank and Gaza]. But they [instead]annexed those territories.

    And there wasn’t a Palestinian [national] consciousness. They considered – during the first part of the 20thcentury — [that] they were part of the larger Arab world. However, as a result of the next 30 years there[developed] a Palestinian national consciousness.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Zachriel. | December 11, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    Is it too much to ask that you do a little research before posting a comment? The stamp you link was not issued by “Palestinians.” It was issued by the Egyptian Expeditionary Force. http://www.zobbel.de/stamp/pal_01e.htm The EEF was British, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Expeditionary_Force

    Midwest Rhino (not RINO) in reply to Zachriel. | December 11, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    and I didn’t bother to mention .. “tens of centuries” predates Islam, which I guess was the reference to this “Palestinian” supposed heritage.

    If we can go back “tens of centuries” … 1800 years … maybe Christians and Israel should be dividing the lands? Islam is late to the party. But slash and burn Muhammad is still terrorizing the neighborhood.

    ThomasD in reply to Zachriel. | December 12, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Turkey purports to support the formation of a Palestinian state. If they truly accepted your notions of justification then they should have already granted the Kurds, residing within Turkey’s borders, their own state as well.

    Since they have not it is safe to assume that their espousal of Palestinian statehood has nothing to do with the type of concern that you express.

    Similar corollary could be drawn for every other nation that borders Israel.

    Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | December 12, 2011 at 11:01 pm

    Palestinians have very deep roots in the area, and have retained their identity going back tens of centuries.

    That is complete bullshit. They are almost all desecended of recent immigrants who came looking for jobs created by the zionists. Hardly any of them have ancestors who were there in 1850. They’re like white settlers claiming to have “deep roots” in South Dakota, going back “tens of centuries”. The Jews are the natives of the area; the “Palestinians” are interlopers. They’d be welcome to stay as guests if they weren’t so keen on killing the Jews. If the whites were to try wiping out the Indians the Indians would have every right to rise up and drive them out too.

RE:”Palestinian national identity as it currently is recognized was a reaction to the creation of Israel…” ~ Jacobson

MY COMMENT: Then why, pray tell, did the Zionists establish a newspaper in 1932 and name it “The Palestine Post”? Why did they dream up that name?

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

(excerpts) ‘The Jerusalem Post’ is an Israeli daily English-language broadsheet newspaper, founded on December 1, 1932 by Gershon Agron as “The Palestine Post”
…According to the Historical Jewish Press, ‘The Palestine Post’ was established “as part of a Zionist-Jewish initiative”, and “Zionist institutions considered the newspaper one of the most effective means of exerting influence on the British authorities”…
…In 1950, two years after the State of Israel was declared, the paper was renamed ‘The Jerusalem Post’…

SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jerusalem_Post

      Midwest Rhino (not RINO) in reply to LukeHandCool. | December 11, 2011 at 10:31 pm

      thx LHC.. informative … I’ll let W Jacobson carry on a more scholarly argument … I see some silly contradictions .. but have other battles I’m fighting … this is interesting 🙂

      and thanks William Jacobson, for shedding light on this … be strong and of good courage 🙂

        Yeah, when people start throwing half-digested, half-understood Wikipedia passages about, it’s time to yield to people like the Professor who know this stuff inside and out. Otherwise it’s a never-ending battle with people throwing garbage at you.

        I’ve read a lot over time about the issue, but haven’t had the time nor energy to commit much to memory and constantly have to look things up again and again.

        In the end, all that matters is the end of the the vicious hatred of the Jews by the people we now refer to as the “Palestinians.” I don’t see how that happens … land alone will not do it as I see it.

        These Arabs are as much a distinct people as we “Southern Californians” are. Geographically, and, in subcultural ways unimportant, we may be “distinct” at this point in time, but surely we’re just Americans with a coastal attitude.

          Midwest Rhino (not RINO) in reply to LukeHandCool. | December 11, 2011 at 11:35 pm

          I’m sure we Midwesterners have some ancient claim on your lands LHC, and you personally have no doubt wronged us. “IT” is apparently just about politics … so if we can just fabricate the right argument …and hire the “right” lawyers … we shall be avenged. 😉

          But the Obama admin’ says it all comes down to the barrel of a gun … so perhaps he DOES support the constitution? (no, he means he can force us to submit, and will work on gun control beneath the radar)

          Justice weeps … but with the internet, I still hold out hope. No wonder public schools don’t want Johnny to read.

          The game is afoot. 🙂

    Darkstar58 in reply to DICKERSON3870. | December 11, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    You seem to be confusing the name “Palestine” with the “national identity” of a people now calling themselves that.

    The two are actually separate from eachother.

    Oh, and the “Palestine Post” actually stems from the short-lived “British Mandate for Palestine”; which encompassed Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Saudia Arabia.

    But even then, such a name would identify with Baghdad as much as it would Jerusalem. Their using BMP as an argument for their heritage would mean everyone down to even Saddam could have declared himself a “Palestinian” under the guise of “national identity” despite his never having any connection to the area.

William A. Jacobson: The stamp you link was not issued by “Palestinians.”

Of course the 1919 stamp was issued by occupying powers, and it recognizes Palestine as a separate entity.

Midwest Rhino (not RINO): If we can go back “tens of centuries” … 1800 years … maybe Christians and Israel should be dividing the lands? Islam is late to the party. But slash and burn Muhammad is still terrorizing the neighborhood.

Palestinians, as a distinct grouping, predate Islam and Christianity.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Zachriel. | December 11, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    No one disputes that the British called the area encompassing what now is Jordan, Israel and the West Bank Palestine. It’s completely irrelevant to the issue.

    Midwest Rhino (not RINO) in reply to Zachriel. | December 11, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    Zachriel … illuminate me on what you mean by this distinct grouping “Palestine”, and how it relates to the current Palestinian claims on the region.

    You seem to be claiming it predates Islam and Christianity … and that they didn’t just claim the same name, but are the same “people”.

    A couple links could no doubt clear that all up. I’m no Israeli scholar … I’d be glad to be elucidated.

    Darkstar58 in reply to Zachriel. | December 11, 2011 at 11:01 pm

    Palestinians, as a distinct grouping, predate Islam and Christianity.

    Although the area has been referenced by outsiders as “Palestine” on a couple occasions since 500BC, the people were refereed to as Syrians – since “Palestine” was only considered a small section of actual Syrian territory.

    Rome renamed it “Palestine” as its own area (to piss off the Jews), in about 200 AD, but there is no reference that I know of which indicates they considered the people to be “Palestinians”. The did state a couple times “land of the Pelashtim”; but that’s the closest, and even it wasn’t an official term. And the Bible tells us most people didn’t recognize the name what so ever.

    We also know that there were no Arab leaders to stand up and fight for their freedom from Rome either, which makes it questionable that any Arab people now claiming a connection to that renaming actually have much (if any) heritage dating back that far.

    And the British Mandate encompassed most of the middle east – that didn’t make everyone a citizen from Israel to Saudi Arabia “Palestinians”

    “Palestinian”, as reference to an actual group of people is a modern term, and is only used by those who do not want to have anything to do with a nation called “Israel”

      Midwest Rhino (not RINO) in reply to Darkstar58. | December 11, 2011 at 11:51 pm

      thanks darkstar … I think you are getting to the root of the propaganda … this seems Orwellian … reworking an old name, revisionist history …

    ThomasD in reply to Zachriel. | December 12, 2011 at 10:08 am

    Judea, as a term for the region, also predates Christianity and Islam (the Ib’n come lately of the bunch…)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Judea

    And given that those inhabitants of pre-Christian, pre-Islamic Palestine/Judea were neither Christian nor Muslim we can safely conclude that none of those peoples have much in common with those today who call themselves Palestinians.

    As an aside, please note in the linked article precisely when and why Judea came to be called Syria Palestina.

    Maybe someone should ask the Syrian to take them in?

Romney is such a weasel!

Newt’s statement takes a common complaint of conservatives, that the liberal intellectual elite gains by changing our vocabulary (every revolution begins with the dictionary), and puts it out there in a way people can understand. The method has a succinctness that, if used more often, would devastate the entire liberal project. I am not a big Newt supporter, but bravo.

Of course, the title and URL are more of the myth-making — or lying, to be factually rather than politically correct — than surrounds Barky, even at this late date. It should be “Professor Gingrich vs. Adjunct Instructor — little more than a glorified TA — Obama”.

Midwest Rhino (not RINO): illuminate me on what you mean by this distinct grouping “Palestine”, and how it relates to the current Palestinian claims on the region.

Many Muslim and Christian Palestinians can trace their ancestry over generations, indicating deep roots in the area. But if you want more stringent evidence, analysis of the y-chromosome shows that Palestinians have kept their genetic identity and their occupation of the area for thousands of years. Just as importantly, Palestinians are very closely related to Jews, who have also kept their genetic identity over the two thousands years of the diaspora.

Nebel et al., The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East, American Journal of Human Genetics 2001.

Hammer et al., Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2000.

    Midwest Rhino (not RINO) in reply to Zachriel. | December 12, 2011 at 9:52 am

    thanks Zachriel

    so they have strong ancestral identity, as do the Jews. But that only “indicates” where they lived loosely. The Jews kept their Y chromosome identity, despite their dispersions.

    And the current Palestinians were then, indeed part of the Ottoman Empire, as Newt states, and only became “Palestinian” recently.

    Your Hammer quote mentions “Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations” … that doesn’t seem to identify or separate just “Palestinians” of today, which is more of a political distinction. Your Y-chromosome study would indicate more that Israel belongs there with the others, not that the Palestinians were a “distinct grouping”. (as I understand it)

      Midwest Rhino (not RINO): Your Hammer quote mentions “Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations” … that doesn’t seem to identify or separate just “Palestinians” of today, which is more of a political distinction.

      This diagram may help. http://www.zachriel.com/images/Hammer_2000_Jew_Arab_Ychromosome.png

      Notice that Palestinians are more closely related to Jews than to most other Mid-Eastern populations. If you read the studies, there is some admixture from surrounding Arab populations, but it’s clear that the Palestinians have retained their regional, genetic identity. Even more remarkable, in light of the Diaspora, so have the Jews.

    Darkstar58 in reply to Zachriel. | December 12, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Many Muslim and Christian Palestinians can trace their ancestry over generations, indicating deep roots in the area

    If we are to follow this logic, then the state of San Luis Potosí, including the Capitol of Mexico City, could rightfully be broken off into its own country under a French-related heritage and flag. That’s the problem with invading forces – they leave evidence of their being there…

    That said, the Arab Palestinians were not there for “thousands” of years – there is no evidence Arabs were there in any numbers until the first time Islam attempted to wipe all non-Muslim mankind off the face of the planet – roughly 700-800 AD. And even after that, they were “Peleshet” – or translated, migrants…

    Under this train of thought, illegal migrants from Mexico could all start gathering in one US city and rightfully claim it as a Sovereign Nation – maybe calling it something like “Diné” (in a effort to give themselves more legitimacy, like Palestinians have done)

    Now, the vast Greek population in Israel were “Peleshet” as well, predating Arabs by more then a thousand years. Their genetic markers are still there too; intermingled with both the Jewish people and the Arabs who migrated. So maybe Greece should probably be given a chunk of Israel to control as well?

    “Nebel et al., The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East, American Journal of Human Genetics 2001.”

    This Gene is common in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and even Europe. If this so-called Palestinian-shared Y-Chromosome is reason to give them a chunk of Israel, then 100s of Millions of people from all over the world would be able to make the same exact claim, with the same exact level of proof of heritage.

    Ironically, you didn’t give a link to a study showing the Y-Chromosome of “Palestinians” though (I wont dispute it, just saying). Nor do you explain this group of peoples relation to Syrians being much, much closer then their relation to the Jews who inhabit Israel.

      LukeHandCool in reply to Darkstar58. | December 12, 2011 at 2:35 pm

      “If this so-called Palestinian-shared Y-Chromosome is reason to give them a chunk of Israel, then 100s of Millions of people from all over the world would be able to make the same exact claim, with the same exact level of proof of heritage.”

      Let me just say, that if it does get divided up … I gotta be right by the beach. I was born by the beach. I just can’t be landlocked. I get seasick like nobody you’ve ever seen, but I’m a salty ol’ seadog of seafaring stock in spirit. And an excellent bodysurfer to boot.

[…] PROF. JACOBSON: “The importance of Gingrich’s comment was that it skewered a false historical narrative whic… […]

[…] recently Gingrich declined to coddle the Palestinian people. He called them an invented people that the Muslim world and leftists use to delegitimize Israel. Furthermore, he called Palestine […]

I’ve never thought myself of that politically correct.

But if I were arguing over an issue that involved the security and safety of a vast number of Jews one of the last things I’d use as a basis for argument is any notions of racial or genetic purity/identity.

Even if there was some there there (and it is in no way clear that there is) I’d still be hesitant. The real dangers, and even the mere rhetorical danger of guilt by association, are far too great.

[…] recently, Gingrich declined to coddle the Palestinian people. He called them an invented people that the Muslim world and leftists use to delegitimize Israel. Furthermore, he called Palestine […]

[…] looks eerily familiar to those of us who followed the events of “Second Intifada” when Palestinian suicide terrorists targeted Israeli women and children, especially in crowded locations and during […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend