Newt Gingrich and Palestine

[Chris the Chees]

As I am sure everyone is aware Newt Gingrich recently made a comment regarding the historical legacy of Palestine and the people within that part of the word who describe themselves as Palestinians. Gingrich, in his comments, described the Palestinian people as being 'invented'. The purpose of Gingrich's comment was to boslter the claim by Israeli's to inhabit the land they call home and to rebut the claims by those individuals, who identify themselves as being Palestinians, to parts of that same region.

I was asked to share my views on Gingrich's comments publically on the forum. After a little thought this proved to be rather tricky. Unfortunately, the history of the region is not a topic which I have looked at in any major detail. So, prior to making this post, I did a little reading around the topic. On one hand Gingrich has something of a point. It is a fact that the region has prior to the foundation of Israel spent much of its history, stretching back many many centuries, as part of one empire or another. It has not been a seperate independent state in its own right. Prior to the creation of Israel in 1948, the region had been a part of the British Empire. Britain had acquired the region following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire which had formerly controlled the region in the First World War. The Ottomans had controlled the region since 1516. Prior to this point the region had been controlled by various Islamic empires since 636. Even prior to this period the region swapped hands between various foreign dynasties.

So Gingrich is certainly correct on one level. However, I would suggest that this is a superficial analysis. While the region may have well been a provice of one empire or another until well into the ancient period, if not earlier, that does not indicate that the region was not a unique, self contained identifiable geographical, political and cultural unit.

The Egyptian's recognised the existence of a region they described as 'Peleset' over 3,000 years ago. The Assyrians refered to a Palashtu around 800 bc, and Palestine was refered to by Herodotus. So while the region has not been politically seperate from various empires over the span of time, it has regionally been identified under that name and so to, by extension, have its people.

This raises the question of whether a geo-politically disenfranchised group can be accorded recognition. This actually strikes me as a rather silly question, because the answer is obviously yes, they can. Nobody would deny the Welsh that label. Yet the Welsh people too have never really existed if we go by the notion that the existence of a historically independent state defines the right to invoke a national identity. Prior to th Edwardian conquest of Wales the region was made up of various small politically, and often unaffiliated warring, independent regions. Indeed the idea of a single 'Wales' was actually a product of the English.

We can make similar observations of many other regons. We must also conaider the fact that Gingrich's objections regarding the Palestinian people also can be directed against Israel. When over the last 1,000 years, prior to 1948, can we see an independent Israel? Why, if the Palestinian people are invented, can the same label not be applied to Israelis?

[msheikh]

Newt's position is backed from poor scholarship in the past.

in 1984, "From Time Immemorial" was published. The premise was that the region of Israel in 1948 was largely uninhabited at the time, and a large number of Arabs immigrated to the region during the British mandate and on, starting conflict. This is where the idea of Palestinians being "invented" comes from; there are no Palestinians, just Arabs that came from other parts of the region to start trouble.

The book was widely acclaimed by most popular media outlets at the time and became very popular. However, later Norman Finkelstein proved the book to be a fraud in his PhD dissertation at Princeton.

[Dieval]

Newt's position is backed from poor scholarship in the past.

in 1984, "From Time Immemorial" was published. The premise was that the region of Israel in 1948 was largely uninhabited at the time, and a large number of Arabs immigrated to the region during the British mandate and on, starting conflict. This is where the idea of Palestinians being "invented" comes from; there are no Palestinians, just Arabs that came from other parts of the region to start trouble.

The book was widely acclaimed by most popular media outlets at the time and became very popular. However, later Norman Finkelstein proved the book to be a fraud in his PhD dissertation at Princeton.

For clarity - From Time Immemorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that not everyone believes that Norman is right about this book...

[m5lange1]

It seems that not everyone believes that Norman is right about this book...

In this polarized nation there seems to be NO book that EVERYONE believes is right. In fact I am sad to say more people are interested in who said something than what is said.

If you go back far enough were all peoples not defined by an area they settled. Gingy is talking politics. He could care less about the history.

[lsbskins1]

This, in essence, in Gingrich's argument. Does anyone with any ethics or a brain really buy it?
Eddie Izzard - Do you have a flag? - YouTube

[iolo]

All nations and peoples are 'imagined communities' (our real communities are usually somewhere around the 300 mark, I'd guess), and all of them were 'invented' at one time or another as the result of various historical shifts. Gingrich is trying desperately to appear more ignorant and dishonest than he really is, and he must be given credit for taking on such a very difficult job.

[msheikh]

It seems that not everyone believes that Norman is right about this book...

Not everyone is honest. The book is a fraud. Not just misleading, but an outright hoax. It contained many distortions and conveniently ignored facts.

EDIT:
Here is an excellent piece discussing all this in greater detail:

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/david-...nkelstein.html

It's an interesting episode in our "intellectual history" as Weiss puts it.

[BobbyO]

The purpose of Gingrich's comment was to boslter the claim by Israeli's to inhabit the land they call home and to rebut the claims by those individuals, who identify themselves as being Palestinians, to parts of that same region.

Gingrich has said he supports a two state solution. I think his comment is more along along the lines that the Palestinians have to demonstrate they can function as a state.

I

was asked to share my views on Gingrich's comments publically on the forum. After a little thought this proved to be rather tricky. Unfortunately, the history of the region is not a topic which I have looked at in any major detail. So, prior to making this post, I did a little reading around the topic. On one hand Gingrich has something of a point. It is a fact that the region has prior to the foundation of Israel spent much of its history, stretching back many many centuries, as part of one empire or another. It has not been a seperate independent state in its own right. Prior to the creation of Israel in 1948, the region had been a part of the British Empire. Britain had acquired the region following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire which had formerly controlled the region in the First World War. The Ottomans had controlled the region since 1516. Prior to this point the region had been controlled by various Islamic empires since 636. Even prior to this period the region swapped hands between various foreign dynasties.

So Gingrich is certainly correct on one level. However, I would suggest that this is a superficial analysis. While the region may have well been a provice of one empire or another until well into the ancient period, if not earlier, that does not indicate that the region was not a unique, self contained identifiable geographical, political and cultural unit.

However, today the term "Palestine" and "Palestinian" is indeed considered this way.

The Egyptian's recognised the existence of a region they described as 'Peleset' over 3,000 years ago. The Assyrians refered to a Palashtu around 800 bc, and Palestine was refered to by Herodotus. So while the region has not been politically seperate from various empires over the span of time, it has regionally been identified under that name and so to, by extension, have its people.

The Palestinians today are thought of and assumed to be Arabs. That is the understanding of a country called Palestine- it would be an Arab state. The people residing in Palestine in Herodotus's day were not Arabs.

This raises the question of whether a geo-politically disenfranchised group can be accorded recognition. This actually strikes me as a rather silly question, because the answer is obviously yes, they can. Nobody would deny the Welsh that label. Yet the Welsh people too have never really existed if we go by the notion that the existence of a historically independent state defines the right to invoke a national identity. Prior to th Edwardian conquest of Wales the region was made up of various small politically, and often unaffiliated warring, independent regions. Indeed the idea of a single 'Wales' was actually a product of the English.

Palestinians are Arabs who were living in the region called Palestine; Iraqis are Arabs who were living in the region which became Iraq; Syrians are Arabs who are living in the region which became Syria ect. The Welsh were not Englishmen living in the region that was called Wales, they had their own language, culture, history ect.
Perhaps it could be said that the creation of Israel inspired the Arabs in Palestine to develop their own national identity, and that is fine and is plausible. In any event, it exists today which is the reality.
But certainly it is reasonable the question a proposed state which is basically on the verge of civil war, and which there are sizeable numbers pledged to the destruction of another state.

[The Decider]

Gingrich has said he supports a two state solution. I think his comment is more along along the lines that the Palestinians have to demonstrate they can function as a state.

Let me understand: so Gingrich supports a state for an "invented" people? How exactly does that opinion advance the cause of peace let alone a two-state solution? It plays right into the hands of hardline Israeli conservatives who want to continue building settlements in Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema, the biblical "Greater Israel."

Gingrich is, and always has been, a shameless chameleon. My how things change when an election is at stake. Here's Gingrich shaking hands and giving advice to the former leader of the "invented" Palestinians:

[BobbyO]

Let me understand: so Gingrich supports a state for an "invented" people? How exactly does that opinion advance the cause of peace let alone a two-state solution? It plays right into the hands of hardline Israeli conservatives who want to continue building settlements in Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema, the biblical "Greater Israel."

Gingrich is, and always has been, a shameless chameleon. My how things change when an election is at stake. Here's Gingrich shaking hands and giving advice to the former leader of the "invented" Palestinians:

It's sort of like describing the Soviet Union as "the evil empire"-- an accurate description of that country which puts things into proper focus. if Moscow wanted to dispel that name, they needed to take certain steps.
If the Palestinians wish there to be an independent Palestine, they too, need to do certain things. A simple claim that they should be an independent country " just because" does nothing to advance the cause for peace and a two state solution.

[iolo]

It's sort of like describing the Soviet Union as "the evil empire"-- an accurate description of that country which puts things into proper focus. if Moscow wanted to dispel that name, they needed to take certain steps.
If the Palestinians wish there to be an independent Palestine, they too, need to do certain things. A simple claim that they should be an independent country " just because" does nothing to advance the cause for peace and a two state solution.

It is their country, all of it. Are you suggesting a massacre of the settlers? That seems a bit strong!

[The Decider]

It's sort of like describing the Soviet Union as "the evil empire"-- an accurate description of that country which puts things into proper focus. if Moscow wanted to dispel that name, they needed to take certain steps.

False analogy. Even Ronald Reagan never called the people of the former Soviet Union "invented." He may have wanted a smaller subset of states, including one for mostly ethnic Russians, but he never insulted his opponents by questioning the historical existence. Gingrich did just that to the Palestinians. Sorry, you can't advance the peaceful settlement of a diplomatic problem by calling one of the two combatants "invented people." Gingrich is a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen.

If the Palestinians wish there to be an independent Palestine, they too, need to do certain things. A simple claim that they should be an independent country " just because" does nothing to advance the cause for peace and a two state solution.

Those "certain things" do not include justifying their historical existence as a people. By that standard, a majority of nations in the world with colonial pasts would have a tough time overcoming their colonial "invention." Gingrich simply perverts history to curry favor with the worst of Israel's hardline settlement zealots.