How it would sound if Newt had said this: "Remember there was no United State 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 Europeans, and were historically part of the European community. And they had a chance to go many places."
Well, that’s true. They’re wasn’t a United States as a state. It was part of the British Empire, and the American people were an “invented people”, who were largely European and had a chance to go many places.
Great idea – hand the U.S. back to the British Empire. and hand Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Syria, etc., back to the Turks. It would solve a lot of problems.
It’s a trick question. Link.
Everyone knows what a Yooper is, they’re defined by the region they live in. They are, however, not ‘a people’.
- Not that I necessarily agree with Newt here, hes just not as crazy as he comes off. Sometimes.
As opposed to something he did say?
Or as opposed to this that someone else said?
What is the debate?
(I hope that it is not keying on
which would have stopped being true pretty by the middle of the nineteenth century, what with the eventual absorption of the (much reduced) indigenous peoples and the acceptance of Asian immigrants, regardless who said it.)
Ah, never mind.
His statement is rather accurate in regards to invention, (recalling that it applies equally to large numbers of other peoples early in their histories), and mostly false in regards to “had a chance to go many places,” although he probably needs to use that rhetoric to keep his potential electoral base.
The Palestinians are indeed an invented people. And so are the Israelis. The difference is, the Israelis started their self-invention - or re-invention - process around the turn of the 20th Century, while the Palestinians waited until the post-WW2 period. That delay, incidentally, is one big reason why they lost in 1947-1948.
This is a funny OP and the comments too.
Is it really that you all pretend not to dig why he said what he said?
What’s the pretence? He said it because there are more pro-Israeli votes than pro-Palestinian votes in the US – and the GOP would be really fighting uphill to gain many of those pro-Palestinian votes.
Who is the “he” you’re referring to?
The OP or Gingrich?
It wasn’t a trick question, I was assuming that people would know what I was talking about since this was all over the news today.
My point is that Newt characterized the Palestinians in a way that sounded pejorative yet would apply to other societies that are widely recognized as legitimate today. It is also inflammatory for inflammation’s sake. I think Ghaith al-Omari said it best:
It’s 100% undeniable that the Palestinians are an invented people, and of relatively recent invention.
That’s neither here nor there in determining how they should be treated or whatever. Much like Americans they have certain land that by treaty (in this case dictated by the British, in our case negotiated with the British after defeating them in a war) they are entitled to and they have lost some of that land in wars.
They were on the losing side of those wars, true. If you lose a war you lose some territory, but the question is should you also be subjected to a perpetual occupation? It’s a difficult question, and unfortunately anytime that occupation has been significantly drawn back the Palestinians have not shown themselves to be very good at establishing a functional state and being good neighbors, but time will tell if it ever works out.
Constantly fighting for a return to the original treaty boundaries is simply fruitless, they lost land legitimately in a war. Germany might as well start rattling the sabers to get Danzig back, or Denmark rattling the sabers to get Holstein back, or Finland Karelia, or again Germany with Kaliningrad (Koenigsberg is an ancient and important city in the history of Germany, for exmaple.)
I agree with Newt that the Palestinians are an invented people. When the Ottoman Empire was around there was no Palestinian identity at all, the various parts of the Ottoman Empire did not have strong regional identification equivalent to say, French people’s identification with France the country or Dutch people’s identification with The Netherlands. Instead you had a few large ethnic groupings (Turks, Arabs, others) and Arabs might feel cultural ties to other Arabs and Turks to other Turks, inside those groupings you had certain regions and such where there were tribal relationships but the unifying factor was the Empire itself and when the British essentially broke it up and drew a bunch of lines on the map it’s folly to pretend those lines had anything to do with real societies or real cultures that existed.
It is no big lie to say that the Arabs living in land that is now part of Syria or Jordan were not any different a people than those living in land that is now Palestine. The big difference is that as the 20th century developed Arabs in those countries ended up in real functioning states, Arabs in Palestine did not. The rest of the Arab world was and has been absolutely unwilling to let these Palestinian Arabs emigrate into their country, nor have they been much concerned with working to make a stable and prosperous Palestine. Instead they help prop up the concept of Palestinian persecution and keep Palestinians angry about “land that was stolen” and other such windmills solely to hurt Israel and to avoid any thought of people in Palestine trying to move to other parts of the Arab world.
There are Palestinians alive that once lived in a land called Palestine, the recent invention is the nation of Israel. Yes, while taken land and migration is a norm in world history that never makes it ok, that the Western world not only obliged but sanctified its creation doesn’t make it right either.
I love how only a specific group decides when the clock starts on a topic.
Using logic equating a people to a ‘legitimate recognized government’ can get you into trouble. As well the Jews understand.
Yeah, I don’t see how people can not get that statement. You’d have to be a deliberately dense to misunderstand that.
Really.
Please tell men when under either the Ottomans or the Arabs the land was known as “Palestine”.
You do realize that it was the British who decided to rename the land “Palestine” based on some romanticized myths surrounding the New Testament?
Er…Palestine came into existence just after WWI and Israel came into existence slightly after WWII.
I’m not sure why you consider Israel to be a “recent invention” while Palestine is not.
Also, I assume you’re familiar with the Peel Commission report of the 1930s where the political leader of the Palestinian Arabs, El Hajj Amin Al Husseini and the guy declared by both Yasser Arafat and Ahmad Shukairi(I assume you know who he was) to be the father of Palestinian nationalism criticized the British for creating the Palestinian Mandate(which was when the Arabs started calling the area Palestine) and said that “Palestine” should have been part of “greater Syria”.
Muslims and Jews are long-held identities that have been around for an extremely long time, but Israelis and Palestinians are identities that have been around far less.
The Middle East is not remotely as simplistic as your post implied.
So then you think El Hajj Amin Al Husseini was a moron who knew nothing of the area when he criticized the creation of the Palestinian Mandate and claimed it should have been a part of greater Syria and that there was no distinct difference between the Arabs living in the land called Syria and the Arabs in the land the British called Palestine?
Would you mind explaining why you think Husseini was wrong.
Similarly, I assume you’re familiar with the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs calling themselves “The Arab High Committee” instead of the “Palestinian High Committee” or something similar.
Now, most people upon learning this, combined with the fact that Palestinian Arab intellectuals, notables and Fellaheen didn’t object would take this as evidence of the fact that in the 1930s there was little to no Palestinian national consciousness.
Would you mind explaining why they’re wrong and what’s your evidence of this.
Thanks
Or, that Americans are an “invented” people.
At some point we are… like everyone else is.
Human beings can’t own land. Only claim it.
But he wouldn’t dare say this, he only said it about the Palestinians.
You have to consider his intended audience… the racist vote.
The votes as in number of American citizens, 18 years of age that will cast a vote in the upcoming POTUS elections. Got it!
Yeah, I forgot, it’s all about the votes and, apparently, you will get even more of these pro-Israeli voters if you appear as radical as right-wingers in Israel. Got it!
Imagine how many votes Newt would garner if he said "The Palestinian’s story of the right of return is based on a historically false story”. Oh, sorry, I think that’s what he said last night. Which means there’s some nasty pro-Israeli voters in US that Newt must pander to.
The only way Rick Santorum can get those votes from Newt is if Santorum said that “all of West Bank is Israel”. Oh, sorry, I think that’s what he said.
Votes, eh?
:rolleyes: