Gingrich and the ‘Invented People’

Jewish World Review ^ | 12/12/2012 | Jonathan Tobin

[Former Fetus]

Newt Gingrich is taking a lot of flack for telling a Jewish cable channel that the Palestinians are an "invented people." Those comments were the subject of a lengthy segment of last night's Republican presidential debate and will, no doubt, inspire angry commentary from the pro-Palestinian left as well as concern from others who will say that Gingrich's attitude is unpresidential (as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum seemed to imply) and will not help the cause of peace.

This leaves us with three questions: Was Gingrich right? If so, what implications should this have for U.S. policy? And even if he was correct, was it wise for him to say it?

>>SNIP<<

it must be said it was refreshing to hear a major American political figure state the truth about the history of the Palestinians and to say the myths they have created have been in service to one goal only: the destruction of Israel

[newzjunkey]

and the West Bank, well it's the home of Jerusalem and we know what the Bible says about Jerusalem.

Since neither the Jews nor the Muslims are adherents to the Bible, what's that got to do with anything?

[newzjunkey]

Find a history book or read one of the related articles.

This flap Newt has created is red meat pandering--aimed at evangelicals, I suspect--with no positive affect on the so-called peace process. The people of the United States are an "invented people." So what? He's still advocating a two state solution. This is a distraction.

[aruanan]

This flap Newt has created is red meat pandering--aimed at evangelicals, I suspect--with no positive affect on the so-called peace process.

What Newt said about Palestine is 100% true. The so-called Palestinians are mostly Arabs who were refused entry to surrounding Arab states during the earliest Arab attacks on Israel or who left Israel and were kept on its border as refugees for political purposes of the largely Arab states surrounding Israel. Jordan comprises 2/3 of Palestine, yet the ruling class is a tiny minority compared to the general Arab population of Jordan, which they've screwed over since the beginning. There is a two state solution, one that has been around since Palestine was to be partitioned by the U.N. in the late 1940s. West of the Jordan River is Israel. East of the Jordan River is Jordan for the non-Israeli "Palestinians" or those who don't want to remain in Israel. See From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. The Arabs jumped the gun and attacked Israel before the U.N. vote and grabbed the West Bank which they later lost in the course of another attack on Israel in 1967, boo hoo.

[aruanan]

Newt is right but I’m not sure what his point is. Let’s face it, for 3500 years nobody has had any claim to that land other than by force of arms.

Well, the Jewish settlers in the late 19th century bought their land and worked it to a very high level of productivity. They also paid better wages than any of the Arabs that had farms there, not that many did, and attracted a large influx of mostly Arabs into the region because of the employment.

[aruanan]

Newt quoted the Ottoman Empire as their origins and that's correct but it is ancient history. On a more modern note, PALESTINE was never a nation-state unto itself. It was a part of Jordan -- kind of like a county in the U.S.

The Ottoman Empire ended two years after my father was born. That's not "ancient history." In 1922 the British Palestinian Mandate was divided into two potions: Palestine and Transjordan. Palestine was not "part of Jordan." The region of Palestine remained under direct British rule. Transjordan was under the autonomous control of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan established at that time.

[chuckles]

The Jews are not adherents to the Bible? They wrote it!

Good grief!

Maybe you should read the part where God gave the land to the Jews. Half of the Bible is centered on Jerusalem. Do you remember the land of "milk and honey"?

Start around Exodus and go from there.