Gingrich. "Palestinians an invented people"

[Alkaloid]

link

Does Newt Gingrich believe in a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Democratic and Republican administrations since the 1990s have adopted that framework for peace in the Middle East, but Mr. Gingrich suggested that he might break with it, calling Palestinians an "invented" people and the current stalled peace process "delusional."

He also said the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, which has pledged to respect Israel's right to exist, really harbors "an enormous desire to destroy Israel."

In his comments, Mr. Gingrich has gone beyond the other Republican presidential candidates, who have condemned President Obama for proposing that Israel's 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps, should be the basis for negotiating peace with the Palestinians.

Middle East experts said that Mr. Gingrich's views did not represent those of Israel's conservative prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, or a majority of the Israeli people, and that they might be counterproductive to establishing peace.

Mr. Gingrich made his remarks in an interview with the Jewish Channel on cable television, which posted excerpts online on Friday.

Discussing the origin of the state of Israel in the 1940s, Mr. Gingrich said: "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places."

Martin S. Indyk, a former United States ambassador to Israel, said that if Mr. Gingrich believed that Palestinians did not have a right to an independent state, "as implied in his language, then he's not pro-Israel at all."

"Because the government of Israel under Prime Minister Netanyahu supports a two-state solution," Mr. Indyk said. "The people of Israel — an overwhelming majority of them — support a two-state solution, in which there would be an independent Palestinian state living in peace alongside a secure state of Israel."

Mr. Gingrich, who is leading in recent polls, has repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for bending too far in favor of the Palestinians. He was applauded at a candidates' forum on Wednesday by a coalition of Jewish Republicans for characterizing the administration's view as "it's always Israel's fault — no matter how bad the other side is."

He vowed at the forum that he would move the American Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, a promise previous presidential candidates have made only to reverse themselves once in the White House.

"We've seen that movie before," Mr. Indyk said, citing George W. Bush. "When candidates become president, they understand that such a move would be highly inflammatory absent a peace agreement. It would be pre-empting negotiations. And presidents, as opposed to candidates, don't want to act irresponsibly and undermine negotiations."

In the interview, Mr. Gingrich drew little distinction between the Palestinian Authority, which is in power in the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls Gaza and is regarded by the United States government as a terrorist group.

"I mean, we have an armed truce with a Palestinian Authority that's relatively weak," he said. "And on its flank is a Hamas authority, which may become relatively weak because it can't deliver anything. But both of which represent an enormous desire to destroy Israel."

He described Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, as denying Israel's right to exist.

"You have Abbas, who says in the United Nations, ‘We do not necessarily concede Israel's right to exist,' " Mr. Gingrich said. "So you have to start with this question: ‘Who are you making peace with?' "

Mr. Abbas, who unsuccessfully sought to have a nation of Palestine accepted for United Nations membership in September, said in his speech that he favored peace talks.

David A. Harris, chief executive of the National Jewish Democratic Council, an American Jewish group, said Mr. Gingrich's views reversed decades of American policy by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

"This is as clear a demonstration as one needs that he's not ready for prime time," Mr. Harris said.

A campaign spokesman did not respond to requests to clarify Mr. Gingrich's positions.

I love this. I really do. This man is the frontrunner to be the Republican candidate. Jesus.

[Todeswind]

It's actually a pretty common point of view in America, not simply within the GOP, that Palestine is not, nor should it be treated as a nation. Essentially they believe that the entire notion of the palestinian state is mythical, largely based upon the fact that Isreal formed itself from "Transjordan" and only became Palestine after the fact. It stems from a number of fundamental misunderstood pieces of world history and a general American tendency to focus on only International events that the USA participated in.

[Xenophobe3691]

Well that, and the West Bank was once Jordanian, and the Gaza Strip Egyptian.

[Teebs]

I don't get the logic that goes into 'Palestine is not really a nation'. Ok, I can see the arguments for it, even if I disagree, but if it's not a nation then that leaves only two options for the Palestinians. Either they're citizens of Jordan/Egypt under occupation by Israel, or they should be Israeli citizens. Both of those outcomes are surely worse for the Israelis.

[Alkaloid]

Well that, and the West Bank was once Jordanian, and the Gaza Strip Egyptian.

But by that logic Israel isn't a nation either. Whats more disturbing though is the attitude of "well they should have fucked off and gone to live with all the other ay-rabs and not made trouble for the nice Israelis." I'm not pro Palestine over Israel or anything, but this just speaks to the mind of a man who is completely failing to see what the problem actually is, and is going to go tearing along a path that will make it worse because he doesn't know what he is trying to fix. The US has never really been a bastion of effective middle east foreign policy, but this is taking it to absurd levels.

[Spoonist]

But by that logic Israel isn't a nation either.

And neither would most of the countries of the world either. Its a bullshit argument from the Grinch but it clearly shows his agenda and that was its purpose. It signals "on my watch Israel can do whatever it wants to the palestinians".

[Todeswind]

Actually the criticism that the Palestinian territories and peoples ought to have been made part of Jordan / Egypt isn't entirely without merit. Certainly neither of those governments did all that they could to integrate the Palestinian populations within their own and there is a school of thought that the palestinian expatriates were intentionally not integrated in order to cause Israel difficulties, but to belabor either of those points ignores the rather glaring point that the Palestinian people don't seem to particularly want to be part of Jordan or Egypt.

[MarshalPurnell]

There was (and to some extent still is) a cultural and religious feeling of shared identity among the Arab peoples of the Middle East that leaves the modern nation-state a weak institution. At the time of the Ottoman Empire the thrust of Arab nationalism was about creating a sweeping Arab state Syria, the Nejd, Arabia, and Mesopotamia as a single large country. The Sykes-Picot arrangement which formed the basis for most of the modern borders in the region was reached exclusively by the British and French on the basis of their national interests, and drew those borders in a completely arbitrary manner. There was little to distinguish "Syrians" from "Lebanese" from "Iraqis" from "Jordanians," and so on; tribal and sect affiliations were much more important, though at that particular time Arabic nationalism was based on language, history, and culture rather than religion, with Arab Christians being a very important intellectual vanguard. About the only exception was Egypt, which had a longer period of (notional) independence and a history stretching far back from the Arab Conquest, and even it was strongly in favor of national union with other Arab peoples.

Thus by the turn of the 20th century there was less difference between Palestinian Arabs and (say) Syrian Arabs than between Bavarians and Prussians, or English and Scots. They thought of themselves as a single community, had a largely similar set of culture and customs, spoke and read the same language with Classical Arabic kept in use against the dialects by the Quran, and so on. There was some regional variation but not enough that the differences were felt to be keen, much less to outweigh the similarities of religion and language, especially in a period of aggressive imperialism by foreign, Christian powers. So yeah, looking at the ex-Ottoman population of Arabs as a big, undifferentiated mass of "Arabs" is not entirely unreasonable, and indeed was one of the core assumptions of Nasserite Arab nationalism. Of course Nasser repeatedly failed in his attempts to create political unions; once the colonial powers had established rudimentary states there were still local elites who gained from the status of an independent nation, and Nasser tended to try to run roughshod over them in favor of Egyptians. In addition, the colonial powers had tended to promote the power and influence of minority sects as part of a divide-and-rule strategy, exacerbating religious differences within the population and giving the ruling parties a reason to hang on at all costs. It would certainly be wrong to say that there is no Arab regionalism today, and the unique Palestinian experience as a refugee population oppressed by others (especially other Arabs) has certainly created an identity- and it's a bit late to go give Sharif Hussein a big unified Arab country, or to dodge war with the Ottoman Empire by not taking their ridiculously overarmed battleship.

That said, if Egypt and Jordan had just assimilated their portions of the Mandate of Palestine it probably would have been the best of the potential solutions to the problem created by the 1948 War. But too late, too late. Gingrich even bringing this up in public is a demonstration of his tendency to have big ideas influenced by his pretensions to being a historian, while also lacking basic discretion to wade through and figure out which of those ideas is actually feasible or useful. It's the same thing with his call to abolish child labor laws; he took a reasonable observation, that work might help break cycles of crime and poverty among urban youth, and instead of going in a reasonable direction like promoting the idea of vocational education or apprenticeships or whatever, declares instead we need to eliminate the minimum wage and working age laws. While here there's also undoubtedly some pandering to Evangelicals involved, just as with the proposed appointment of John Bolton, he probably genuinely thinks this is a daring and bold assertion of historical truth in a Churchillian manner rather than pointless reactionary posturing. He won big with his Contract with America, but that was a unique case where his posturing lined with a serious sense of voter outrage, and the program itself was not divorced from the political ability to achieve it. His statements on Israel and Palestine, though, certainly are divorced from any useful political paradigm and would destroy the peace process- which may well earn him Evangelical votes, but will make it harder for anyone else to take him seriously.

[Bakustra]

I don't get the logic that goes into 'Palestine is not really a nation'. Ok, I can see the arguments for it, even if I disagree, but if it's not a nation then that leaves only two options for the Palestinians. Either they're citizens of Jordan/Egypt under occupation by Israel, or they should be Israeli citizens. Both of those outcomes are surely worse for the Israelis.

You forgot C. They're genocidal parasites occupying land that is rightfully Israel's and should be killed/forced off of it as is practical. Which is what Likud used to believe back when they helped the CIA sabotage the Carter reelection effort, and what any Israeli who says that "Palestine is a made-up country" really believes, and what the people who support settlements sympathize with. You're presuming that these people are treating it rationally rather than as an excuse to kill and ethnically cleanse more Palestinians. After all, they're nothing more than squatters on Israeli land, aren't they? And note that despite the pretensions of some, Gingrich doesn't suggest that Syria is a fraud, or Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia, because he is not interested in any sort of consistency here, but rather in differentiating himself from the other candidates by moving squarely in favor of ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide, though of course he would not admit to condoning such on television.

[Gandalf]

Does this work?

Discussing the origin of the USA in the 1770s, Mr. Gingrich said: "Remember, there was no America as a state. It was part of the British Empire. And I think that we've had an invented American people, who are in fact British and were historically part of the European. And they had a chance to go many places."

[cosmicalstorm]

I do believe they are "made up" just like a lot of other people. But the Palestinians lacked the momentum to cut out a piece of land and call it their own, while their enemies were very capable of doing so. Now the Palestinians will be slowly but steadily expelled from their own lands, they have zero control of fundamental infrastructure. They will never get the land they dream off, Israel will take it. Even if all Arab countries formed a dream team and attacked Israel, that would only leave a radioactive wasteland for them.
During the coming decades we will continue to witness a painful death of the Palestinian state via the death of a thousand cuts. It dosent matter what is right or what is international law. Or am I being to fatalistic? I don't see any hope for a happy turnout of the current state of affairs.

[JPaganel]

Even if all Arab countries formed a dream team and attacked Israel, that would only leave a radioactive wasteland for them.

Given how actual military engagements involving Arabs in recent decades tend to turn out, I kinda doubt it. Arabs will just lose again, no nukes necessary.

[cosmicalstorm]

Even if all Arab countries formed a dream team and attacked Israel, that would only leave a radioactive wasteland for them.

Given how actual military engagements involving Arabs in recent decades tend to turn out, I kinda doubt it. Arabs will just lose again, no nukes necessary.

Indeed, most have failed miserably due to the inherent weakness of Arabic tribal/clan-culture to produce efficient meritocratic-based military standards like those of the western world. But that was not my point, I was saying; even if the Arab world got their shit togheter, it would still end with Israel dotting ~200 nuclear weapons all over the region. I think the Palestinians are done for, no matter what. So where do we go from here? So many people seem to be living in the "But Israel should do this and that" world.

[Todeswind]

It has been my experience that Nations are often content to do little more than simply point fingers and say "its a damn shame" unless the misdeeds of any one country affect the general standards of living of another nation capable of acting. Palestine doesn't really have anything the rest of the world either wants or needs, so the suffering of its people is a matter of little more than academic interest worldwide.

[Simon_Jester]

Ultimately, the Israelis themselves are not well served by trying to found their state on an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing and military paranoia. One of the big arguments for trying to end the conflict peaceably is the way it turns Israel into a garrison state and distorts their politics.

So the fact that you can find a Zionist wing of the Israeli people who really do want to drive out the Palestinians, and who have so far been able to accomplish this in a slow but steady way, doesn't mean people should stop trying to persuade the Israelis to stop. Or, for that matter, to stop trying to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians themselves.


Yes, this does not equate to crusades being fought to save the Palestinians from the Israelis. Todeswind, you're right about that, but I think you're forgetting some of the implications.

A war fought to stop an evil is in grave danger of becoming a worse evil. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 to stop the evil of Saddam Hussein, and in a sense succeeded (Saddam and his secret police are not a problem for Iraqis), but managed to make the country just as bad or worse as it would have been had Saddam remained in power.

So naturally, any effort to force a country to start acting decently is unlikely to escalate to open warfare, because except in the most blatant cases of genocide, a war will kill and impoverish more people than the atrocities it prevents would have. The problem is that if a country really wants to behave badly, most acts short of war won't stop it- no amount of isolation or blockade is going to convince North Korea to stop being a totalitarian hellhole, or Cuba to stop being a communist dictatorship (not a hellhole compared to North Korea, granted), or China to hold meaningful elections, or Iran to abandon theocracy.

There are some cases where foreign influence might have an effect even so. In the case of Israel, the only country that still has real leverage over Israel is the US. Other countries can despise or accept Israel, and the Israelis don't much care, because they can do pretty well whether France or Russia or India likes them or not. The US still offers them a lot of valuable help, though...

...And the US decision to aid Israel hinges on US politics and US perceptions of the Israel vs. Palestine issue. And also, for that matter, on US perceptions of world perceptions of the issue. Which makes debating and pointing fingers and "tsk, tsking" suddenly more relevant, because it tends to affect how far out on a limb Americans are willing to go in order to keep providing Israel with much-desired economic support.

[Todeswind]

In theory I agree with you but quite frankly I can't see the US perception of palestine changing without several generations worth of efforts to educate America, at which point it will be too late. It should be done I just doubt that it will accomplish anything in time.

In the current environment there isn't much of a reason for the Government to change. Pro-zionist lobby groups are infinitely more powerful than anti-zionist lobby groups and considering the general anti-Arab and Anti-palestinian sentiment in the United States coming out in support of Palestine is damn near political suicide.

[eyl]

So the fact that you can find a Zionist wing of the Israeli people who really do want to drive out the Palestinians, and who have so far been able to accomplish this in a slow but steady way, doesn't mean people should stop trying to persuade the Israelis to stop. Or, for that matter, to stop trying to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians themselves.

I should note that "Zionism" actually covers a pretty wide range of opinions - the members of Meretz, for example, are largely Zionist. "Ultra-Zionist" might be a better term.

There are some cases where foreign influence might have an effect even so. In the case of Israel, the only country that still has real leverage over Israel is the US. Other countries can despise or accept Israel, and the Israelis don't much care, because they can do pretty well whether France or Russia or India likes them or not. The US still offers them a lot of valuable help, though...

I wouldn't take this too far - Europe is a major trading partner, after all (IIRC we have more trade with Europe than with the US).

[Zinegata]

I don't get the logic that goes into 'Palestine is not really a nation'. Ok, I can see the arguments for it, even if I disagree, but if it's not a nation then that leaves only two options for the Palestinians. Either they're citizens of Jordan/Egypt under occupation by Israel, or they should be Israeli citizens. Both of those outcomes are surely worse for the Israelis.

Many of them technically are citizens of Jordan/Egypt under occupation, just like how many Arabs who live in the Golan Heights still see themselves as Syrian citizens. And given that Israel actually has decent relationships with both Egypt and Jordan, it wouldn't have been hugely terrible idea if Israel simply gave back these territories along with their population back to Egypt and Jordan. Note that Israel handed back the Sinai along with its (admittedly small) population back to Egypt in exchange for peace after Yom Kippur.

The problem, as Todeswind noted, is that they've been seperated so long that simply handing back these territories is no longer an option - because the Palestinians have formed their own seperate national identity.

Surprisingly though, making all Palestinian into Israeli citizens may not be as unlikely as it sounds - just don't expect it to happen suddenly in one go as that would totally upturn Israeli politics.

What should be noted instead is that a considerable portion of current Israeli citizens (around 10% if I recall right) are actually Palestinians, and they even have their own political parties in Israel with seats in the parliament. While the extreme Orthodox Jews may be grabbing all the headlines in Israeli politics, their government is actually more inclusive than many people give them credit for. Heck, it may entirely be possible to not have a two state solution - and instead divide the "Palestinian" population between Israel, Jordan, and Egypt (and return the territories to Jordan/Egypt) - but given that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have already gone all-in with independence... that's probably not going to happen.

[Spoonist]

Just a small reminder that the ultro-ortodox is the fastest growing demographic in Israel. They out breed all the other demographics.
So its very hard to dismiss them from any political platform.

[wautd]

Saying they are an invented people is one thing, but accusing that they're all terrorists like in his latest debate is something else. At this point I'm cheering for Romney for the sole fact it's the only candidate that isn't an extremist.

[eyl]

Many of them technically are citizens of Jordan/Egypt under occupation, just like how many Arabs who live in the Golan Heights still see themselves as Syrian citizens. And given that Israel actually has decent relationships with both Egypt and Jordan, it wouldn't have been hugely terrible idea if Israel simply gave back these territories along with their population back to Egypt and Jordan. Note that Israel handed back the Sinai along with its (admittedly small) population back to Egypt in exchange for peace after Yom Kippur.

Not quite. Jordan offered citizenship to some (or all, I can't remember), because it annexed the West Bank. Egypt did neither of those things. Post-war, neither wanted those areas back.

[Omeganian]

Many of them technically are citizens of Jordan/Egypt under occupation, just like how many Arabs who live in the Golan Heights still see themselves as Syrian citizens. And given that Israel actually has decent relationships with both Egypt and Jordan, it wouldn't have been hugely terrible idea if Israel simply gave back these territories along with their population back to Egypt and Jordan. Note that Israel handed back the Sinai along with its (admittedly small) population back to Egypt in exchange for peace after Yom Kippur.

Not quite. Jordan offered citizenship to some (or all, I can't remember), because it annexed the West Bank. Egypt did neither of those things. Post-war, neither wanted those areas back.

Didn't Jordan refuse the territories when offered?

[Akhlut]

Saying they are an invented people is one thing, but accusing that they're all terrorists like in his latest debate is something else. At this point I'm cheering for Romney for the sole fact it's the only candidate that isn't an extremist.

Ahem. Huntsman is actually a very clearheaded moderate. I disagree with him a lot on fiscal policies and the like, but he seems to be someone who could actually carry on a conversation, compromise, and be respectful of the opposition.

Or did you mean someone realistically able to be nominated by the GOP primary voters?

[wautd]

Saying they are an invented people is one thing, but accusing that they're all terrorists like in his latest debate is something else. At this point I'm cheering for Romney for the sole fact it's the only candidate that isn't an extremist.

Ahem. Huntsman is actually a very clearheaded moderate. I disagree with him a lot on fiscal policies and the like, but he seems to be someone who could actually carry on a conversation, compromise, and be respectful of the opposition.

Or did you mean someone realistically able to be nominated by the GOP primary voters?

Well you see, this tread is the first time I hear about this Huntsman. I guess the media rather focuses on the crazies for entertainment value.

[Zinegata]

Many of them technically are citizens of Jordan/Egypt under occupation, just like how many Arabs who live in the Golan Heights still see themselves as Syrian citizens. And given that Israel actually has decent relationships with both Egypt and Jordan, it wouldn't have been hugely terrible idea if Israel simply gave back these territories along with their population back to Egypt and Jordan. Note that Israel handed back the Sinai along with its (admittedly small) population back to Egypt in exchange for peace after Yom Kippur.

Not quite. Jordan offered citizenship to some (or all, I can't remember), because it annexed the West Bank. Egypt did neither of those things. Post-war, neither wanted those areas back.

Eh? I'm pretty sure Gaza was sovereign Egyptian territory until it was captured by the Israelis. I can see the Egyptians not granting citizenships to refugees who fled from Israel, but the existing people who lived in Gaza before the war should have been Egyptian citizens.