A few days ago the NY Times reported an interview with Newt Gingrich in which he made the fabulist claim that the Palestinians are an “invented people.” Now, in a follow-up article, the Times expands on Newt’s embarrassing exhibition of ignorance about the Palestinians:
“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?’”
First, “we” don’t have a truce or even an armed truth with anyone, unless of course Newt became a dual citizen and took up Israeli citizenship. Second, the “truce?” That’s with Hamas, not the PA. The latter, in case Gingrich wasn’t aware, wasn’t in a state of hostilities with Israel. In fact, it recognizes Israel and has done so since 1988. So that stuff about the PA having “an enormous desire to destroy Israel?” He made it up.
That’s not to stop Israel from killing its residents as they did yesterday, when Mustafa Tamimi was killed by a high velocity tear gas canister for the crime of throwing a stone at an armored IDF vehicle which was in no danger whatsoever. Third, if the PA is “weak” it’s because Israel has made it so by refusing to negotiate a peace agreement. Fourth, as for Hamas being weak, that’s not the case at all. In fact, Israel’s policy of refusing to negotiate a settlement has made Hamas incredibly strong as the sole meaningful Palestinian movement resisting Israeli Occupation. Fifth, the crap about Abbas “not necessarily recognizing Israel’s right to exist?” Didn’t happen. Newtie just made that one up.
This is the guy who’s running as top dog among the current Republican presidential candidates. What will they come up with next?
The Times story quotes perennial lib-Zionist source Martin Indyk reciting meaningless platitudes:
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.”
Indyk makes the mistake of believing what Netanyahu says, while ignoring what he does. That’s a fatal mistake in politics. Bibi gave one speech in which he claimed to support a two state solution. But every act of his entire life, and certainly in his leadership of this government has summarily rejected the notion of two-states. He doesn’t support two states at all. In fact, he wishes to sabotage the very possibility. So Indyk’s claim that Gingrich is not on the same page with Netanyahu is a crock. Both Gingrich and Bibi are on the same page. Neither wants a Palestinian state. Both want Israeli hegemony in all of Eretz Yisrael in perpetuity, or as close as we can get to that.
As for whether the Israeli people (remember, those who were “invented” around 1948 or, if you want to go back a bit farther, by Theodor Herzl in 1898) support a two state solution. I suppose you might say that in theory they do. But theory means little or nothing when we talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you asked most Israelis whether they believe there ever will be a two state solution, I’d bet my bottom dollar that most would say, No. And in the end, that’s what counts far more than theories. If Israelis don’t believe there ever will be a two state solution then they’ll see no reason to support the compromises necessary to get there. Nor will they exert pressures on their elected leaders to get them there.
So Newtie, he’s in perfect synch with Bibi and the Israeli silent majority. The latter won’t bust their hump for peace or a Palestinian state. So why should a front-running Republican presidential candidate? Newt, you’re right in the pro-Israel nationalist sweet spot. Don’t you move a muscle.
Which is why I was charmed by Gingrich’s representative, who issued a “clarification” of his boss’ remarks which of course clarified nothing. He claimed that Newt does follow long-term U.S. policy which calls for a two-state solution. How could anyone have ever doubted him? As for his comments about the invention of Palestine, well that’s a long complicated historical discussion which Prof. Gingrich had waded into, and being a learned professor perhaps his audience could be forgiven for not following all the nuances of his argument:
“…To understand what is being proposed and negotiated you have to understand decades of complex history, which is exactly what Gingrich was referencing during the recent interview with The Jewish Channel.”
Among other nuggets in the series of interviews The Jewish Channel features on its YouTube channel, he says he “has a bias” in favor of clemency for Jonathan Pollard, the American who damaged U.S. intelligence more than any other spy in recent U.S. history. He also called Israel “a civilian democracy that obeys the rule of law” (how long do we have to unravel the errors in that sentence?) while calling the Palestinians “a bunch of terrorists who are firing missiles every day.” In the following, he gets twisted in the knickers of his own metaphor in calling Obama administration policy regarding the Palestinians:
“Like taking a child to the zoo and telling it the lion was really a bunny rabbit and that it was OK to get in the cage and play with the bunny rabbit, and then you’re shocked that the lion ate the bunny rabbit.
UPDATE: The AP notes that Gingrich poured gasoline on this fire in the latest presidential debate when he had this astounding comment:
“Is what I said factually true? Yes,” Gingrich said during a candidate debate in which he drew applause for asserting that it was time someone spoke the truth about the nature of Israel’s struggle with the Palestinians.
“Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists,” he said. “It’s fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, ‘Enough lying about the Middle East.”‘
“These people,” these Palestinian people, all of them apparently, “are terrorists.” Hey, if the Republicans want to nominate this guy as their standard bearer, knock yourselves out. I hope it happens. He’ll be roast meat come November.
I chuckle at the recent profile the Times ran of Gingrich in which they actually credited him with being a deep thinker, or at least playing one on the campaign trail. They even got a few historians to concede that Newt was a respected member of the Historians’ Club, even if he did stray off the reservation of intellectual rigor every once in a while. Face it, the guy’s a joke, a blowhard who likes to hear himself think and talk. But one who would be far better off if he’d exert a bit of discipline over whatever intellectual and verbal faculties he does have.
Related articles
- Newt Gingrich: Leading GOP Presidential Candidate: “Palestinians are ‘invented’ People” (loonwatch.com)
- Gingrich Camp: Newt Supports A Palestinian State, But ‘You Have To Understand Decades Of Complex History’ (thinkprogress.org)
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
No other country in the world has leaders running for the top position and competing over who takes it up the you know what from a foreign country harder in hopes of securing domestic votes. And even scarier, the context of the blue versus red state position (yep, we’re still divided over here in the US based on, basically, those lines) has moved so far-right, that now Presidential candidates are doing insane things like promising to:
(1) declare where the capital of a foreign state will be;
(2) declare that the capital will be outside of the foreign state’s borders (or, e.g., if we declared the capital of Mexico to be Austin, Texas);
(3) annex illegal occupied territory and settlement blocs, completely slapping the UN in the face several times, the world body, and tearing asunder any remaining notion of international law and order;
(4) make John Bolton the Secretary of State (you might as well make Bibi Netanyahu the head of CentCOM); and,
(4) become horribly complicit in Israel’s many international crimes instead of just playing the supplier and protector.
It’s time to clean out all ~600 members of Congress and to start over. It’s basically the only way other than hoping that some nationalist will come along to silence this traitor.
i do know how to count: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. ;)
Forget arithmetic, your socio-political commentary is far more valuable, as you’ve demonstrated in your reaction to our uber hypocrite and mendacious charlatan, Lizard Gingrich.
Thank you. I pray everyday that the people within the artifice of nations and imagined boundaries will eschew these politicians and demagogues and realize how better off we’d be without their lies, cruelty and selfish means of governance.
One day, they will be the cattle.
RE:“Is what I said [about the Palestinians being an 'invented people'] factually true? Yes,” Gingrich said during a candidate debate… “Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth.”
MY COMMENT: Then why, pray tell, did the Zionists establish a newspaper in 1932 and name it “The Palestine Post”? Why did they dream up that name?
FROM WIKIPEDIA:
SOURCE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jerusalem_Post
There wasn’t any country named Palestine,it was the name of the area.Which both Jews and Arabs lived,calling themselves Palestinians.
That’s not true. Before establishment of Israel in 1948 only Jews living in Palestine were called “Palestinians”. Arabs – never.
It is quite interesting that Hannah Arendt – who was quite critical of Jewish leadership – in her “Eichmann in Jerusalem” (published in 1964!) referred to Zionists negotiating with Nazis in the late 1930′s as “Palestinian envoys”.
So, Gindrich is not quite correct – today’s Palestinians did not invent the name, they stole it….
We’ve been over this before, but the United States is still required to recognize Palestinian nationality under the terms of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention as a matter of inter-temporal law. The Jews have no exclusive claim to Palestinian national origin. The British authorities summed it up this way
Israel was created through its own act of secession, but the Arabs remained Palestinians.
Newt seems to have forgotten that the US was one of the Allied Powers that invented Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine (which it officially recognized in 1932).
Oh please. This is ludicrous nonsense. I find your comment borderline racist & that is a comment rule violation here.
And I want you to stop the argument about Palestine & who owns the term. Neither you nor I nor Jews nor anyone else outside contemporary Palestine do. And none determine who has a right to use it or not use it. As a non-Palestinian you have even less right to an opinion than Palestinians.
For the record – I do recognize Palestinian national identity and their right for self-determination with their right to call themselves whatever they want.
However, that does not mean that I cannot question their origin and their historical claims. This does not make me a racist.
This by no means a unique situation.
For example, Greeks point out that contemporary Macedonians have no connection to Alexander the Great and the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia. That in itself does not make Greek racist or bigoted in any way. They just want to preserve their national history and culture. This also does not stop Macedonians to call themselves Macedonian and have their own little country.
Re:However, that does not mean that I cannot question their origin and their historical claims.
Whenever modern-day geneticists wish to establish a Middle Eastern origin for Jews from elsewhere, they point out that many Palestinian Arabs and Jews shared a common male ancestor within the last 80-100 generations. The Palestinian elites (Husayni, Khalidi, Nashashibi, ‘Abd al-Hadi, and Tuqan families) and the tribes were all well established in the 19th Century and are mentioned in Western Consular and missionary society reports from that period, See for example historical background documents in British Foreign Office Confidential Prints FO 424 and Arab Bureau Papers FO 882.
RE: “Before establishment of Israel in 1948 only Jews living in Palestine were called “Palestinians”. Arabs – never.” ~ Sanych
SEE: “The Story of Palestinian Nationhood Thwarted After the League of Nations Recognized It”, by Juan Cole, Informed Comment, 03/16/10
ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/map-story-of-palestinian-nationhood.html
RE: “Before establishment of Israel in 1948 only Jews living in Palestine were called “Palestinians”. Arabs – never.” ~ Sanych
SEE: Mr. Gingrich, Grab a Pen: It’s Time for Your History Lesson, by Ashraf Ezzat, Dissident Voice, 12/16/11
ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/12/mr-gingrich-grab-a-pen-its-time-for-your-history-lesson/#more-40250
RE: “Before establishment of Israel in 1948 only Jews living in Palestine were called “Palestinians”. Arabs – never.” ~ Sanych
SEE: Gingrich, Israel and the Palestinians, by Uri Avnery, Counterpunch, 12/16/11
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/16/gingrich-israel-and-the-palestinians/
I promised myself not to write any more on this topic, but the volumes of your writings compel me to return here.
Your posts actually confirm my earlier statements while providing an appearance of contradiction.
In ancient times there was a region inhabited by Philistines – roughly where the contemporary Gaza is today. Your “Greek historian” – Herodotus – could have written about it. It is also important to understand that his original writings did not survive and were translated and re-written over the ages – with corrections. For example, King James Bible in its translation of the old Testament also uses the term Palestine, which does not exist in the original text.
The simple fact is that Emperor Hadrian renamed Judea to Palestine in 135 CE. When Arabs came to the region in the seventh century the place was called Palestine.
You correctly wrote “There was no formal distinction between Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Jordanians”. Exactly! They were an Arab nation with the same customs, language, laws, tradition, and, for most part, religion. Palestinians of today claim that they were a nation from the time of dinosaurs. The quote from your generous copy and paste show that this is not true.
And when you wrote “a state called Palestine became a fact under the British Mandate” I would like to know what you were smoking, because there was an area – a region – called Palestine, which included today’s Jordan, but there was never a state called Palestine.
And, yes, counterpunch is such an authoritarian source….
waitasecond!
dickerson3870 posted three big excerpts from three different sources. I responded to the ones that I found relevant to the discussion (I don’t see how the issue of Exodus or patriarchs is relevant here). Yet, you comment that I should not have responded and should have taken my comments elsewhere?!?
Amazing!
Tikun Olam all the way!
Since you love wikipedia, here is a link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chesdovi
Scroll down to the section “Palestine?”. You will see most images have Hebrew signs (only two have both Arabic and Hebrew letters).
“Palestine Post” was strictly Jewish publication, it is now “Jerusalem Post”. During NY World Fair in the 1930′s Palestinian pavilion was hosted by Zionist organisations.
So, prior to 1948 the word “Palestine” was strictly associated with Jews. Your friends just appropriated it in the late 1960′s.
Does it answer your question?
Your link proves nothing and your claim that the Palestinians grabbed the word Palestine in the sixties is mostly not worth bothering with, but since you like wikipedia, try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Palestine_Government
I can assure you that Haj Amin El Husseini did not mean to include Jews in the “all” Palestine part.
Randy,
The article that you posted does not contain the word “Palestinian” without “Arab” prefix.
This is precisely my point – Arabs in Palestine were not referred to as “Palestinians” like today.
And please don’t bother responding untill you learn to read…
Sanych,
I guess this website tends to attract arrogant narcissists like you who think they can make their points by insulting the other posters. You lack basic reading skills–the whole point of the “Arab Palestinian” formula is to distinguish Palestine from the ummah as a separate cause. For the Palestinians, the Jews were just invaders and not “Palestinians.”
Also, if you are going to critique other’s reading skills, you may want to enroll in some remedial training to learn how to write. The word “until” is spelled with just ONE L.
Mostly, it’s idiots like you who have no educational background—and I am shouting out the anti-zionist characters who frequent this website–who cover for their lack of nuanced understanding of the conflict, its historical roots, etc, with emotional attacks against anyone who DARES contradict them. You know nothing, you don’t have the foggiest notion of evidence is, and you can’t spell. Go away.
Randy,
I now designate you my official spellchecker.
As far as characters this website attract, you belong to the type who posts messages that are either illogical, irrelevant or unrelated to the subject at hand.
Please also note that I did not call you an idiot.
Funny how your idea that my posts are irrelevant or illogical reflects my view of your post. You simply do not understand reasoning. Showing people to a punch of pictures with Palestine written in English, Arabic and Hebrew on a variety of official forms does not in any way make the point you seem to think you are making. Pointing that out to you is hardly off topic–it was your comment that was off topic.
More to the point, the Arabs used Palestine and Palestinians long before the sixties. The Palestine Liberation Army wasn’t going to help the Haganah.
So I would just as soon “spellcheck” your comments out of existence, where they belong.
Oops. That’s bunch, not punch. Freudian slip.
None of your examples even once referred to Palestinian Arabs as “Palestinians”. None… “All-Palestine”, “Palestine Liberation”, etc. – they did not call themselves “Palestinians”.
This is precisely my argument that the meaning of this term had changed.
Got it? Got it? Got it?
Gratuitious personal insults violate the comment rules. Do that again & you’ll be moderated.
If you repeat yrself 1 more time claiming Palestinians stole their name you will be moderated.
The reason for the change is very simple….JERUSALEM is far more important than the whole palestine.
Richard,
On Israel, there probably isn’t much substantive difference between Obama and Newt–Obama just rolls his eyes, but not much has changed.
This election, like every other for some 20 (30?) years means precisely nothing for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The political costs far outweigh any possible gain from trying to resolve an unresolvable conflict. Unless Ron Paul wins–but that prospect makes me shudder for entirely different reasons.
A better US policy would, of course, run along the lines of friends don’t let friends drive drunk–allies don’t let allies drive their countries, and everybody else, off a cliff in a search for perfect security.
“unless of course Newt became a dual citizen and took up Israeli citizenship.”
Maybe after his next marriage?
If he steals Shelly Adelson’s wife and marries her as #4 she might help him get Israeli citizenship since she has it.
Actually, Gov. Huckabee was saying similar things about the Palestinians a year or two ago. It’s probably the routine opinion amongst the religious right Armegeddonites who are a big part of the Republicans. Newt G. may not know jack about Middle East history, but he knows what the tens of millions of Dispensationalists want to hear.
Everything you write about Israel & Israeli’s couldn’t be further from the truth & quite frankly it’s hard for me to believe that you would be ignorant enough to actually believe it yourself. Which suggest to me that you are purposely trying to misinform your readers. Israelis do want peace. Let me repeat that for you. Israelis want Peace. The fact that they might respond to question such as do you believe there will be peace with a no is only because they know the Palestinians not to want it. Young Palestinians learn in school that it is righteous to kill Jews. Don’t you know that? Not one thing that Israel has done, in moving towards peace has actually worked out favorably for her. Was handing over Gaza to the Palestinians a positive move? You’d think so, wouldn’t you? But obviously it wasn’t. When Barak offered Arafat and the Palestinians all that he did at Camp David and was refused the world was shocked. Weren’t you? God, you can’t possibly be stupid enough to believe the crap you write.
Sure they want peace. Peace on their terms. Anyone would. I don’t blame them. But that doesn’t mean the Palestinians or anyone else is going to roll over & play dead in the face of Israeli demands that they get what they want. If Israelis want peace but refuse to compromise so their opponents can get their critical interests met, then they don’t want real peace. They want the peace of the victor. And that’s fake peace.
And don’t repeat yrself ever. Say something 1x & that’s it.
Your comment is totally off topic. This is not the venue to rail about the Palestinian education system. If you need to do that you belong elsewhere than here. Camp David too is off topic.
Another pet peeve of mine…you might want to learn the difference between “further,” which you misused, and “farther.”
For violating the comment rules regarding personal insults, you’ve been moderated.
May not be fully out of context here, who are canaanites?
Very Reform Jews. Presbyterians.
Canaanites are people who speak Canaantonese and adhere to Canaan culture, known for its cousine completely based on canned food and the modern invention of the phrase “yes, we can!”.
Their capital is Cancun, which they share with .
… with (can’t print their name for fear of murderation).
Continual posturing, point scoring & snark will get you in deeper hot water. If you have something of substance to say, do so. If not, don’t waste our time with so-called wit.
I think Newt has shown more guts than any other republican presidential nominees in his talk with NY times.
No, you only accused him of being illiterate.
As far as I’m concerned you’ve completely contradicted yrself & rendered yr credibility nil. If you accept their national identity, accept they should have a state then there’s no reason to question their origin or historical claims. If you insist on doing so then you don’t accept their national ID.
I’m completely bored by this entire line of discussion. Which means lay off it.
If you want to argue with articles in Counterpunch pls don’t do it here. And pls stay on topic. The comment threads are not a place for discussions about Philistines, Herodotus, etc.
If you have a problem with content someone posts you say it before you respond. Don’t take it upon yrself to further derail the thread with extraneous comments. My problem with what you did was that Dickerson was quoting a Counterpunch article by Uri Avnery. You then proceeded to argue with Uri Avnery. I don’t mind arguing with me or the content of my post. But this isn’t the place to dispute Uri Avnery unless I wrote a post about Avnery. Do that at Counterpunch or somehwere else.
{ 1 trackback }