Skip to comments.Is Newt wrong about 'Palestinians'?
Posted on 12/12/2011 9:27:30 AM PST by geraldmcg
Newt Gingrich has been taking heat for a statement he made about the "Palestinians" being an "invented" people.
"We have had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs," Gingrich said in an interview with The Jewish Channel, a cable-television network. "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state (it was) part of the Ottoman Empire. I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places."
Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both took Gingrich to task for his remarks, with Romney suggesting Gingrich should have talked to Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before making such a provocative statement.
Actually, no such conference call should be necessary.
Long ago, I wrote about the indisputable historic reality raised by Gingrich, and Netanyahu liked it so much, he posted it on his website with approving comments where it remains to this day.
Newt is absolutely right about this. I'm not surprised Romney got weak in the knees over it, but Santorum's reaction is somewhat surprising.
Speaking the truth should never be a problem. Most of our trouble in the Middle East has been created because policies are being guided by myths rather than facts.
I wrote that column about the "Myths of the Middle East" about 11 years ago and updated it earlier this year. Personally, I'm glad at least one prominent U.S. politician has taken these words to heart.
Here's what Gingrich was talking about.
Prior to the 1948 rebirth of Israel, when you used the word "Palestinians," you were referring to Jews, not Arabs. The Jews living in "Palestine," then under the control of the British, called themselves "Palestinians." [c] WorldNetDaily.com Inc.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
In a word? No.
Newt is occasionally right about some things; especially from a historical perspective.
Doesn’t mean that he would make the proper decision on such things when push comes to shove.
Newt is a man blown hither and tither by the slightest breeze. With no real core values, he is led by whims.
Which “whimless” “core values” fuy are you SUPPORTING?!?!
or are you just playing whack a mole for Obama’s benefit?
Screw all that!
There is no such thing as a Palestinian Language!
There is no Such thing as a Palestinian Blood line!
There is no Such thing as a Palestinian DNA Marker!
There has never been a Palestinian government nor was one ever attempted except as a tool to further undermine Israeli and Jewish rights to exist and in peace!
There is no unique Palestinian History!
There are no Palestinian Archaeology digs!
There are no Palestinian Archaeology artifacts or antiquities!
There is no such thing as a Palestinian!
So called Palestine at one time included Jordan. Why isn't Jordan considered a larger part of Palestine or even East Palestine?
Palestine is a joke and a synthetic invention of displaced losers, who are nothing more than homeless and stateless Arabs owing their DNA and historical lineage to every country that surrounds Israel
Here we go again. In spite of Newt being CORRECT, his opponents just used the opportunity to spray some PC all over Newt. Newt handled it well, in my opinion, backed up by Perry’s comments about the trivial crap they were whining about and not looking at the BIG ISSUE — getting rid of Obama and his attack on America.
Is Newt speaking truth to Dimocrats again? He knows how that makes their heads explode.
Newt is 100% right on that one.
2. The Mandate for Palestine Document
1920 - Original territory assigned to the Jewish National Home
1922 - Final territory assigned to the Jewish National Home
The ICJ, in noting it would briefly analyze the status of the territory concerned, and the Historical background, fails to cite the true and relevant content of the historical document, the Mandate for Palestine.1
The Mandate for Palestine [E.H., the Court refers to as Mandate] laid down the Jewish right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day.
The legally binding Mandate for Palestine document, was conferred on April 24 1920, at the San Remo Conference and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sevres on August 10 1920. The Mandates terms were finalized on July 24 1922, and became operational in 1923.
In paragraphs 68 and 69 of the opinion, ICJ states it will first determine whether or not the construction of that wall breaches international law. The opinion quotes hundreds of documents as relevant to the case at hand, but only a few misleading paragraphs are devoted to the Mandate. Moreover, when it comes to discussing the significance of the founding document regarding the status of the territory in question situated between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including the State of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza the ICJ devotes a mere 237 murky words to nearly 30 years of history when Great Britain ruled the land it called Palestine.
The ICJs faulty reading of the Mandate.
The judges choose to speak of Palestine in lieu of the actual wording of the historic document that established the Mandate for Palestine territory of Palestine.3 The latter would demonstrate that Palestine is a geographic designation, and not a polity. In fact, Palestine has never been an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people, distinct from other Arabs, appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule. Local Arabs during that rule were actually considered part of and subject to the authority of Greater Syria (Suriyya al-Kubra).
The ICJ, throughout its lengthy opinion, chooses to speak incessantly of Palestinians and Palestine as an Arab entity, failing to define these two terms and making no clarification as to the nature of the Mandate for Palestine.
Palestine is a geographical area, not a nationality.
Below is a copy of the document as filed at the British National Archive describing the delineation of the geographical area called Palestine:
Like a mantra, Arabs, the UN, its organs and now the International Court of Justice have claimed repeatedly that the Palestinians are a native people so much so that almost everyone takes it for granted. The problem is that a stateless Palestinian people is a fabrication. The word Palestine is not even Arabic.4
In a report by His Majestys Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, the British made it clear: Palestine is not a State but is the name of a geographical area.5
The ICJ Bench creates the impression that the League of Nations was speaking of a nascent state or national grouping the Palestinians who were one of the communities mentioned in Article 22 of the League of Nations. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Mandate for Palestine was a Mandate for Jewish self-determination.
It appears that the Court ignored the content of this most significant legally-binding document regarding the status of the Territories.
Paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations reads:
The Palestinian [British] Royal Commission Report of July 1937 addresses Arab claims that the creation of the Jewish National Home as directed by the Mandate for Palestine violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, arguing that they are the communities mentioned in paragraph 4:
The second paragraph of the preamble of the Mandate for Palestine therefore reads:
The ICJ erred in identifying the Mandate for Palestine as a Class A Mandate.
The Inernational Court of Justice also assumed that the Mandate for Palestine was a Class A mandate,10 a common, but inaccurate assertion that can be found in many dictionaries and encyclopedias, and is frequently used by the pro-Palestinian media. In paragraph 70 of the opinion, the Court erroneously states that:
Indeed, Class A status was granted to a number of Arab peoples who were ready for independence in the former Ottoman Empire, and only to Arab entities.12 Palestinian Arabs were not one of these Arab peoples. The Palestine Royal Report clarifies this point:
The Palestine Royal Report highlights additional differences:
Identifying the Mandate for Palestine as Class A was vital to the ICJ.
There is much to be gained by attributing Class A status to the Mandate for Palestine. If the inhabitants of Palestine were ready for independence under a Class A mandate, then the Palestinian Arabs that made up the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine in 1922 (589,177 Arabs vs. 83,790 Jews)17 could then logically claim that they were the intended beneficiaries of the Mandate for Palestine provided one never reads the actual wording of the document:
1. The Mandate for Palestine18 never mentions Class A status at any time for Palestinian Arabs.
2. Article 2 clearly speaks of the Mandatory as being:
The Mandate calls for steps to encourage Jewish immigration and settlement throughout Palestine except east of the Jordan River. Historically, therefore, Palestine was an anomaly within the Mandate system, in a class of its own initially referred to by the British as a special regime.19
Political rights were granted to Jews only.
Had the ICJ Bench examined all six pages of the Mandate for Palestine document, it would have also noted that several times the Mandate for Palestine clearly differentiates between political rights referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs) because political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed in three other parallel Class A mandates in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Again, the Bench failed to do its history homework. For instance, Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine states explicitly that the Mandatory should:
Eleven times in the Mandate for Palestine the League of Nations speaks specifically of Jews and the Jewish people, calling upon Great Britain to create a nationality law to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
There is not one mention of the word Palestinians or the phrase Palestinian Arabs, as it is exploited today. The non-Jewish communities the Mandate document speaks of were extensions (or in todays parlance, diaspora communities) of another Arab people for whom a separate mandate had been drawn up at the same time: the Syrians that the International Court of Justice ignored in its so-called Historical background of the Mandate system.20
Consequently, it is not surprising that a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, stated in his testimony in 1937 before the Peel Commission:
The term Palestinian in its present connotation had only been invented in the 1960s to paint Jews who had adopted the term Israelis after the establishment of the State of Israel as invaders now residing on Arab turf. The ICJ was unaware that written into the terms of the Mandate, Palestinian Jews had been directed to establish a Jewish Agency for Palestine (today, the Jewish Agency), to further Jewish settlements, or that since 1902, there had been an Anglo-Palestine Bank, established by the Zionist Movement (today Bank Leumi). Nor did they know that Jews had established a Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra in 1936 (today, the Israeli Philharmonic), and an English-language newspaper called the The Palestine Postin 1932 (today, The Jerusalem Post) along with numerous other Jewish Palestinian institutions.
Consequently, the ICJ incorrectly cites the unfulfilled Mandate for Palestine and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine as justification for the Benchs intervention in the case. The ICJ argues that as the judicial arm of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in this case because of its responsibility as a UN institution for bringing Palestinian self-determination to fruition! In paragraph 49 of the opinion, the Bench declares:
To the average reader without historical knowledge of this conflict, the term Mandate for Palestine sounds like an Arab trusteeship, but this interpretation changes neither history nor legal facts about Israel.
Had the ICJ examined the minutes of the report of the 1947 United Nations Special Committee on Palestine,23 among the myriad of documents it did examine, the learned judges would have known that the Arabs categorically rejected the Mandate for Palestine. In the July 22, 1947 testimony of the President of the Council of Lebanon, Hamid Frangie, the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaking on behalf of all the Arab countries, declared unequivocally:
Frangie warned of more bloodshed:
This is not the only document that would have instructed the judges that the Mandate for Palestine was not for Arab Palestinians. Article 2026 of the PLO Charter, adopted by the Palestine National Council in July 1968 and never legally revised,27 and proudly posted on the Palestinian delegations UN website, states:
The PLO Charter adds that Jews do not meet the criteria of a nationality and therefore do not deserve statehood at all, clarifying this statement in Article 21 of the Palestinian Charter, that Palestinians,
It is difficult to ignore yet another instance of historical fantasy, where the ICJ also quotes extensively from Article 13 of the Mandate for Palestine with respect to Jerusalems Holy Places and access to them as one of the foundations for Palestinian rights allegedly violated by the security barrier. The ICJ states in paragraph 129 of the Opinion:
In fact, the 187-word quote is longer than the ICJs entire treatment of nearly three decades of British Mandate, which is summed up in one sentence, and is part of the ICJ rewriting of history:
The Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, as well as the other 28 articles of this legal document, including eight articles which specifically refer to the Jewish nature of the Mandate and discuss where Jews are legally permitted to settle and where they are not, appear nowhere in the Courts document.31
Origin of the Mandate for Palestine the ICJ overlooked.
The Mandate for Palestine was conferred on April 24 1920, at the San Remo Conference, and the terms of the Mandate were further delineated on August 10 1920, in the Treaty of Sevres.
The Treaty of Sevres, known also as the Peace Treaty, was settled following World War I at Sevres (France), between the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), and the Principal Allied Powers.
Turkey relinquished its sovereignty over Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine, which became British mandates, and Syria (Lebanon included), which became a French mandate.
The Treaty of Sevres was not ratified by all Turks, and a new treaty was renegotiated and signed on July 24 1923. It became known as the Treaty of Lausanne.
The Treaty of Sevres in Section VII, Articles 94 and 95, states clearly in each case who are the inhabitants referred to in paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.32
Article 94 distinctly indicates that Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applies to the Arab inhabitants living within the areas covered by the Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia. The Article reads:
Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres, however, makes it clear that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was not to be applied to the Arab inhabitants living within the area to be delineated by the Mandate for Palestine, but only to the Jews. The Article reads:
Historically, therefore, Palestine was an anomaly within the Mandate system, in a class of its own initially referred to by the British Government as a special regime.
Articles 94 and 95 of the Treaty of Sevres, which the ICJ never discussed, completely undermines the ICJs argument that the Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate. This erroneous claim renders the Courts subsequent assertions baseless.
The ICJ attempts to overcome historical facts.
In paragraph 162 of the Advisory Opinion, the Court states:
The Court attempts to overcome historical legal facts by making the reader believe that adoption of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly in 1947 has present-day legal standing.33
The Court also seems to be confused when it states in paragraph 162 of the opinion that the Mandate for Palestine was terminated with no substantiation [E.H., Unless the Court has confused the termination of the British Mandate over the territory of Palestine with the Mandate for Palestine document] as to how this could take place, since the Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law and are considered to be sacred trusts. A trust as in Article 80 of the UN Charter does not end because the trustee fades away. The Mandate for Palestine, an international accord that was never amended, survived the British withdrawal in 1948 and is a binding legal instrument, valid to this day (See Chapter 9: Territories Legality of Jewish Settlement).
The Court affirmation of the present validity of the Mandate for Palestine is evident in paragraph 49 of the Opinion:
Addressing the Arab claim that Palestine was part of the territories promised to the Arabs in 1915 by Sir Henry McMahon, the British Government stated:
Palestine as a people or state is as made up as kwanzaa is a holiday.
Obama has been very instrumental in changing the mid east into a more potent anti Israel, anti American stronghold.... errrrr.... north African caliphate.
Israel will only be the testing ground in the fight against freedom and democracy, then it will be America.
Obama has been the great enabler. The Ghazi that lives in OUR White House!
It just reinforces the image of hand-grenade Newt, ready to blow up at any moment.
Well, that sinks Santorum and marks him as most decidedly non-conservative.
Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both took Gingrich to task for his remarks
None of them deserve my support. They ALL suck.
Some less than others.
Bachmann and Santorum are the only ones left the only one left who appear to have solid core values close to mine.
She is the only one that I really like as a person, but unfortunately she has these ‘ditz attacks’ that are troubling.
Santorum has disappointed me badly twice on policy matters, but his worst trait is that he seems like a very bright 15 year old boy; no ‘gravitas’.
One thing I’m starting to hate about people on these forums is that if you don’t support their candidate they accuse you of being a leftist plant.
Just because I’m tired of the GOP fielding nominees who suck a bit less than the democrat. Just because I want someone that I can admire, respect, and trust as the GOP nominee does not mean that I support 0bama.
Notice that our "allies" in Europe have been the biggest pushers for such a "solution" ever since it first failed back in 1947 when the UN tried to propose it. As soon as it failed back in 1947, the USA's policy should have been to abandon it and to assist Israel wholeheartedly against the Ottoman Caliphate types.
but given the politics of trying to broker a Middle East peace with a two state model
That said, I don't see any near term prospects for that, given the present Palestinian demands and the division of the Pali government between Fatah and Hamas.
No. Pursuit of the so-called "two-state solution" has been the recipe for endless war and perpetuated same, since the "Palestinians" want all of the Levant and no Jewish state in their midst.
That is a recipe for endless war
Then what I proposed is the only tenable means to achieve it.
Our goal should be a Middle East where our Israeli allies can have a measure of relative peace and security
That’s all nice for academic philosophical discussions, but were taking about what is the best shot America has today with the realistic opitons available.
We need positive input, as sour grapes produce nothing.
There’s NOBODY, on or off the current slate that meets ALL of my criteria.
It’s important to determine the best we can do under the circumstances and taking our collective ball home is NOT the “BEST” we can do!
Yes, Jordan has plenty of room to take its Jordian-Palestinians but they don’t want a bunch of terrorists who with Obama’s help have been overthrowing any regime that is not radical Muslim. Jordan may be next to be overthrown and they don’t want that any more than the Saudis want to be overthrown. Who does? Ah, but Israel is fair game? Unfair. But who’s going to cry foul? Individuals. Because no country stands by her anymore.
Yes, regardless of what anyone thinks of Newt, he did the right thing and boldly said it for the world to pick apart. Unfortunately he appears to be a bit shakey on his words and appears to want to backtrack a bit. Glad Michele Bachmann is staunchly pro-Israel and in agreement with Newt that the Palestinians are a fabricated people with no more right to Israel than Rush Limbaugh has to Russia just because the first syllable of Russia is Rush!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.