Skip to comments.Gingrich: "Palestinians" an "invented people"
Posted on 12/09/2011 3:19:40 PM PST by yank in the UK
Gingrich is right in this. PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said this in 1977: The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
Many Lebanese have a different (non-Arab) lineage than Jordanians, Palestinians, or Syrians - I believe many were there at the time of the Old Testament, pre-dating the Arab (and subsequent Turkish) invasions. I have Palestinian coins from 1942; what should those people call themselves?
If they’re all Arabs anyway, why use names like “Jordanians”, “Syrians”, “Iraqis”, “Saudis”, “Moroccans”, etc.
They are a tribe of arabs, there was no Palestine or Palestinians until the Brits ran things after WW1.
Newt is correct on this.
I have to give props to Newt for speaking the truth on this point.
“They are a tribe of arabs, there was no Palestine or Palestinians until the Brits ran things after WW1.”
I understand what you are saying, but how are they different from Jordanians or Syrians in that respect? They were all former colonies of Europe.
The story seems to me to be about WHY they call themselves what they call themselves. It’s the why not the what.
What should they call themselves?
What name would be acceptable?
Considering “Palestine” is an area and not a state..... perhaps, Arabs?
As usual Newt is right.
which is what they are.
That’s not a state either. If it is an area, and they live there, what else would they be called?
Armenians were Armenians whether or not there was an Armenian state; it was a geographic area.
What should they call themselves?
“Syrians and Jordanians which is what they are.”
I don’t see them accepting your proposal (or your logic).
Palestine is a corruption of ‘Philistine’ and the current day Palestinians do have verified genetic ties to the Libyans and Tunisians. Their common history comes via the Carthaginians who were descendants of the Philistines.
Not to take the side of the Palestinians (who I’d just as soon see frog-marched into the Jordanian desert) but the fact of the matter is that modern day Palestine is no less real or fake than modern day Israel. Both came into existence at the same time. Both are nations of people who hold a nationalistic identity but the difference is that one people, Israel, have land. The Palestinians could easily have land in some Arab country were it not for the fact that most Arabs hate the Palestinians more than the Israelis ever did.
Arabs claim descendency from Esau and, by extension, Abraham. Jacob, as the father of the Jews (and, again by extension, Christians, their cousins) is in their view a treacherous interloper as is Rebekah and, by extension, women in general.
This is a key reason why the Islamic mind looks down on women, Jews and Christians and considers themselves the rightful rulers of mankind.
The various factions of Islam have slightly different interpretations but all agree on this topic if you directly ask them.
Few Christians and secular Jews understand this thought process, but it is well understood among the Israelite Jews, some of whom I count among my close friends.
How about Israelis as they live in Israel.
It all goes back to Abraham, and his two sons. Isaac and Ishmael. That is the root of this conflict!
I thought the separation was about Ishmael the first born (albeit via concubine) and Isaac (born later to Sarah).
Maybe a dumb question but, When did the early settlers begin calling themselves “Americans?”
Israel has withdrawn from some of the areas these people live in; I don’t think that would apply.
That is a religion; some Palestinians are Christian. That would be like referring to Americans merely as “Christians”; it really isn’t a good fit, and denotes nothing about one’s culture, language, etc. while giving a sometimes erroneous view of their faith.
Unless they are from the Gaza strip, in which case they are Egyptians.
The Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic was (although expediatently created and illegitimate) a state.....
“A country of Asia Minor east of Turkey and north of Iran. Acquired by Russia from Persia in 1828”.
Palestine on he other hand is a geographic region and has NEVER been an official state.
Calling the people that reside in Palestine (palestinians) is less accurate than calling them Israelo/PaliLeb/Egypto/Leba Guacamolians.
Mixed ethnic backgound, no state means NOMADS.
Little or no ethnic
“What name would be acceptable?”
Evil, muderous, hate-filled A**H*les would at leas be descriptive. But it really doesn’t matter. The article was about WHY they have gone and made up a name for themselves.
What should they call themselves? Homeless.
What name would be acceptable? Freeloaders.
The 1848 construction of Israel is partly a result of the winners and losers in WWII. The Arabs in British Palestine tended to back the Germans. The Russians moved the eastern Polish borders 200 miles toward Germany and the western Polish borders 200 miles into Germany.
Lots of borders were moved around and changed.
Land belongs to those who can hold it.
1848 should be 1948.
Newt is the only candidate with the guts to just tell it like it is.
Even the peoples with very ancient histories--Jews, Greeks, Italians, Chinese, etc., in most cases became nation-states only in the 19th or 20th centuries.
The Greek nation may take pride in the ancient Greeks but their existence as a modern nation owes more to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution--and their present-day borders date only to 1947.
Most of the African nations are the result of European powers drawing lines on maps in the late 1800s. The Palestinians may have started thinking of themselves as Palestinians rather than Arabs only in the 1960s, but there are plenty of nations that are only slightly older (ca. 1960) and some that are younger (East Timor, South Sudan, Moldova, etc.).
Which one of them includes Bethlehem?
The losers of WWI (specifically Turkey) determined the fate of the land; Palestine was set up by Britain in 1917 (before it was over).
“Land belongs to those who can hold it.” The Palestinians understand the implications of this as well as anyone else.
“The Palestinian brigade that operated under the British in WWII was comprised of all Jews.”
I’m not sure what that implies, but Jewish groups like the Irgun 25 years later fought the British.
That is also correct. Arabs who can (or claim to be able) to trace their genealogies back that far all claim to be either descendents of Esau or Ishmael.
The “palestinians” are largely immigrants from Syria, Jordan, and Eqypt.
What-is-now Israel was largely empty for a good 1000 years until the mid-1800s when Jews returned from the surrouding area (purchasing lands from the Turks) and Jewish people from Russia fled the various pogroms.
The exception to this was Jerusalem, which was a mixed town of about 50% Jews, 30-40% Christian arabs, and the rest Druse or arab muslims.
The al-asqa mosque on the Temple mount was pretty much a deserted ruin -— the legend that it was a “holy place” where Mohammed landed being a fairly recent myth for pure Western consumption -— it was BUILT AFTER HE WAS DEAD.
Anyway, “East Jerusalem” became “Arab East Jerusalem” in the early 1900s when German-equiped Jodanian troops commited ethnic-cleansing and kicked the Jewish people out of their homes where they (their families) had been living for 2000+ years.
Regarding the rest of the arab populations, they were basically lower-class arabs who came to Golan and other Jewish areas to get work -— the Jewish returnees in the 1800s were building and needed labor.
100 years later, those arabs claim to be the natives, despite all truth and easy disproving of their claims.
(Same things is happening in Europe, BTW, so your kids will have fun with that.)
“the Islamic mind looks down on women, Jews and Christians and considers themselves the rightful rulers of mankind.”
This is correct. When Jewish people were returning to Israel as-part-of-an-Islamic-run area, immigration and land sales were encouraged.
When the Jewish people shucked off the yoke of the muslims by declaring independence, war was declared.
There was no “stolen land” or any of the B.S. they whine about today.
All that happened was Dhiminnis refused to bow to their “muslim masters,” and this act of rebellion shook the very basis of muslim theology, showing to be false.
In the early 18th century. But the time of the French and Indian war (1750s), Americans were considered a distinct culture regardless of the origin of their European ancestors.
You’re using the Western metaphorical interpretation of ‘nation’ to mean something that has to do with arbitrary lines drawn upon a map. I’m using the classical interpretation of ‘nation’ which refers to a people regardless of where they are on a map. When Israel was exiled to Babylon and to Egypt they were still a nation even though they were landless. The same with Native American tribes that are landless or which are no longer on their ancestral lands. Having some survey lines does not make a nation. A people with a collective identity makes a nation.
Which is part of why I worry about the future of America and that’s because we are becoming a place on the map without a collective identity amongst our people.
I’ve read Tom Friedman, and he doesn’t dismiss the number of Arabs that had been living in the area for centuries. Even in the Old Testament, there are other people already living there.
As far as Europe’s situation, in 100 years they WILL be natives there (and Europe will have to deal with that).
"Ive read Tom Friedman, and he doesnt dismiss the number of Arabs that had been living in the area for centuries.
Picture above is the founding of Tel Aviv. Look populated?
Go read Mark Twain's "Innocents Abroad." Aside from being funny, it's a serious travelouge. He explores what-is-now-Israel from top to bottom. With the exception of Jerusalem (which was held down by Orthodox Jewish folk and various Christian monks), it was essentially empty.
Or, you can go find the old Ottoman Empire census of the area. The arab occupants with in the "couple thousand" range, and were primarily bedouins. (Bedoins not being "palestinians" -- and peaceful with Israel.)
"Even in the Old Testament, there are other people already living there."
So? There is no meaingful connection between the Cannanites (who were wiped out) and the Philistines (who were basically Greeks) and the current arab occupiers of Judea and Samaria. Further, the scientists tell us Israel was markedly wetter and greener then, but turned into a true desert during the last 1500 years --- the result of which being depopulation.
“As far as Europes situation, in 100 years they WILL be natives there (and Europe will have to deal with that).”
Interesting that Europeans would treat muslims as natice, but historically have always treated Jews as non-natives, even though they were there for thousands of years.
Europe deserves what it gets.
(And no, I am not Jewish.)
Europe’s treatment of Jews varies from country to country & century to century; some countries have been very accomodating when others wouldn’t. It is impossible to generalize like that; if Europe had been so terrible to them then the Nazis would have had to travel outside of Europe to find them.