Of course not, I didn’t mean to imply it was. My comments were addressing a specific poster who believed the facts were ‘100% undeniable’.
There should be a drinking contest. Take one shot for every time someone says, “Israel is our FRIEND.” Take two when someone says something like, “If I were president, I would ask Israel if this is what they want us to do or say.”
No, that last line didn’t sound like a statement advocating that the US bounce around stupidly at the ends of someone else’s strings. You’d have to be crazy to think that.
Every national group is invented. This doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Gingrich’s intent was obviously to deny the right of Palestinians to an eventual nation-state based on the fact that they’re “invented”, they’re only Arabs who happen to live in Palestine and should now get the hell out of there because it isn’t theirs. Which they cannot do.
Unless I’m mistaken, even right-wing Israelis typically recognize that a two-state solution is the only possible long-term solution to this conflict. But right-wing Americans enjoy this kind of rhetoric.
You didn’t address what I said at all, and Ibn Warraq explained exactly what I was talking about better than I could have.
“Living Arabs lived in a real place called Palestine.”
I never said anything that contradicts that, right now there is a place that pretty much everyone would call “Palestine” where real Arabs live. It may not have the full recognition of the UN, but aside from extremely hardline elements in Israel and certain people that support them abroad I don’t think anyone is saying there isn’t a region of the world called Palestine, with disputed borders, and that Arabs live there and have lived there.
However, Region != nation.
The Rhine is a region, it isn’t a nation. Rhinelanders are just people who live in that region, but they do not identify as a nationality.
The Appalachias are a region in America that span several state, but there is no “Appalachian nation.”
Prior to the 20th century the Arabs living in the region now called Palestine did not identify with a “Palestianian nation” they did not view themselves as “Palestinian people.” They were Arabs, their first allegiance was to their family and then to their tribe. Then there was a break down between their tribe and other non-nomadic tribes, and then the nomadic tribes. Generally the settled Arab tribes felt closer ties with each other than with the nomadic Arab tribes (which were still present in that region at the end of the 19th century.)
Most of them would have felt some vague identification with the Ottoman Empire, but the Ottoman Empire was a “true empire.” Which meant it was not akin to a modern day State, but rather more akin to a Roman Empire type situation where you had the powerful Ottoman Turks who had a vast number of “vassal peoples” who were fine living under the Ottomans as sort of tributary peoples but did not view themselves as “Ottoman” either.
When the British started drawing lines on the map they picked an ancient place name from this region “Palestine” and applied it to one of the areas they drew on the map. This was the first time anyone had seriously thought of “Palestine” in probably over 1,000 years. For the first few decades the Arabs living in that part of the map still identified first as Arab and did not have any sort of Palestinian nationalism. It wasn’t until the 1930s that Palestinian nationalism really started heavily, and by the 40s of course it was in full swing and it’s gotten more entrenched since then.
Note that I’m not saying the Palestinians are an “illegitimate” people. I am saying that is 100% correct to call them an “invented” people. If the British had drawn the lines on its map such that Syria’s borders would have included modern day Palestinian lands or Jordan would have included them, I am quite confident in my assessment there would be no concept of a “Palestinian nation.” The Palestinian nation came about because the Arabs who were unfortunate enough to be living in that box on the map basically were abandoned by the Arab world and soundly whipped by the Israelis (I’m not interested in disputing the righteousness of such things at this time), this basically caused a nation to be “born of steel.”
In reality that’s exactly how the American nation was born. We started off as 13 colonies with only a very weak sense of a true American nation. Many argue that not until the Civil War did we begin to primarily identify as American, it took lots of dead people and lots of fighting to get there.
I don’t see that Newt is necessarily advocating against a Palestinian state. What he said is factually correct, but it is not inconsistent with accepting a Palestinian state.
Right, I won’t dispute that either. I think the intent of Gingrich’s comment is not good, I think he’s trying to say the Palestinians do not deserve a state because they are an invented people.
I’m not saying that, all I’m saying is he is correct. The Palestinian nation was invented in the early 20th century. Before that yes the physical “land” was there, and real live Arabs lived there, but no one had a region on a map with drawn borders called “Palestine.” The Ottomans didn’t have one of their administrative regions they called Palestine, the Arabs living on the land that is now part of Palestine did not differentiate themselves from Arabs living on the land that is now part of Syria. The lines on the map later drawn by the British did not reflect actual national groups whatsoever.
I don’t think anyone denies that Israeli is an invented nationality either. Obviously Jews have been around a long time, and a small number of Jews have lived in the “Holy Land” since pretty much forever, even after the forced diaspora some still lived there for 2,000 consecutive years. However the “Israeli nation” is a modern and deliberate creation. That doesn’t make it illegitimate either, nor is the Palestinian nation illegitimate.
However it is factually correct to say they were “invented.” Some nations do seem to develop “organically.” For example the “Turkish nation” I would argue developed organically, the “French nation” developed organically, the “German nation” developed organically.
A nation is a people with a shared culture, language, customs, norms, mores, etc. A nation is not a state. A state is a legal entity with drawn borders on a map and powers of government. State != nation, even though many sloppily use the term that way. The German nation was organically developed. The German State was anything but, it was deliberately and methodically orchestrated by a German political leader (Bismarck) in the mid-19th century, before that the German nation was made up of many states.
The French nation likewise predated the French state. During the Hundred Years war France would hardly be considered a proper State, it was a patchwork quilt of differently allied nobles. But slowly the French Kings in Ile-de-France consolidated power across the vast region where the French nation lived, and the French state was slowly and deliberately developed.
In Palestine the State was first developed by a few strokes of a British pen, the nation came later. (Unfortunately the Palestinian State has historically been a shambles and not recognized due to its instability and etc.)
From the NYT:
You think people would be so understanding and fact focused if someone would publicly state that Israelis are also invented people?
I stand corrected. Only a minority of right-wing Israelis support a two-state solution. Of course, this is only one poll on this question. I could see Israelis’ opinions vary depending on the current political climate, on whether Palestinian attacks are currently in the news or not, on the attitude of Israel’s neighbours, etc.
This said, my question is the following: if they do not favour a two-state solution, what is their preferred solution then?
Also of interest in this poll is the fact that young Israeli Jews are much less likely than older ones to favour a two-state solution. Are younger Israelis more hardline than their parents?
Why, yes, I agree with that. But I think the intent of Gingrich’s comments is more important than whether they were technically true or not.
This is outside the scope of this question, but I’d say it depends. Nations develop in very different conditions. The German nation predates the united German state, which may be what you mean when you say it developed organically, but the French nation only started encompassing all the people of France in the 19th or 20th centuries.
FTR, the Palestinians have always lived there, under whatever name. They are simply the descendants of all the peoples who have ever lived in or invaded or colonized Canaan, including Canaanites, Hebrews/Israelites/Jews, Philistines, etc., and Arabs and Turks. They are the cousins of those now called Jews, but their ancestors never left. DNA studies bear this out. They simply are the indigenous people of that region. It is never appropriate to suggest they would be as well at home elsewhere in the Arabic-speaking world.
As for date-of-self-invention, according to Al Jazeera, “Most historians mark the start of Palestinian Arab nationalist sentiment in 1834, when Arab residents of the Palestinian region revolted against Ottoman rule.” For which I have no cite but that. (Do we have any Palestinian Dopers?)
[quote=“BrainGlutton, post:30, topic:605776”]
FTR, the Palestinians have always lived there, under whatever name. They are simply the descendants of all the peoples who have ever lived in or invaded or colonized Canaan, including Canaanites, Hebrews/Israelites/Jews, Philistines, etc., and Arabs and Turks. They are the cousins of those now called Jews, but their ancestors never left. DNA studies bear this out. They simply are the indigenous people of that region. It is never appropriate to suggest they would be as well at home elsewhere in the Arabic-speaking world.
[QUOTE]
The Palestinians haven’t always lived there, simply because the Palestinians are not immortal. Some of their *ancestors *always lived there, naturally, and some of their ancestors immigrated from elsewhere over the past few thousands of years. That’s just human population for you - people immigrate, people emigrate, people die out. The Palestinians are no different; in fact, seeing as the region is the crossroads of three continents and the birthrate of three religions, its inhabitants could probably trace their origins to hundreds of countries. As a Jew and a mongrel, I empathize.
Tracing things back thousands of years is a pointless game that both sides like to play. It’s all nonsense, anyway. Best to focus on the concrete instead of on the mythical.
Yogsouth,
My response was far snarkier and more aggressive than intended.
I can’t edit it, but I can apologize for posting it the way I did.
I would defer to Alessan on those questions.
I’d have to know more about that revolt, and how much of the region of modern day Palestine it encompassed, and how much of that revolt actually carried forward until the modern day.
I mean, revolts happened all throughout history. There were tons of revolts by Bohemians (in the form of the Hussite Wars) against the Holy Roman Emperor, but it isn’t accurate to say that was the beginning of Czech nationalism, it predated it by many centuries.
Likewise Italians might have revolted many times against their various princes and monarchs (in divided Italy many of the Kingdoms/Principalities/Duchies would be ruled off and on by foreign born non-Italian leaders) but that wasn’t the beginning of Italian nationalism. Revolts back then tended to be over immediate concerns, religious reasons and etc. The year 1834 would be pretty early on for a true nationalist revolt, it’s only on the cusp of believability, really.
Let’s say it’s true. So what? It’s a 19th century invention instead of a 20th. Things changed at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century.
Here’s what wikipedia has to say about that time period. No mention of a revolt, and the borders of what might have been considered Palestine are pretty fuzzy:
Tribes around Nablus, Hebron, and Jerusalem, as well as the Abu Ghosh. The Egyptians had annexed Southern Syria, and as part of his attempts to modernize Egypt’s army, Muhammed Ali started conscription. A bunch of the tribes, who weren’t happy with the annexation in the first place, especially didn’t like being conscripted, so they, led by a guy named Qasim al-Ahmad, met in Nablus and said they weren’t going to participate. The Egyptians sent in troops, but that made the situation worse, and al-Ahmad started organizing armed resistance among the tribes. Meanwhile, in Nablus, Islamic preachers were stirring up the crowds and condemning the Egyptians as un-Islamic. Mobs got stirred up, and an army attacked and took over Jerusalem (which was the regional capital), and started slaughtering Egyptians, Christians and Jews. The Egyptian army retook Jerusalem the next day. Meanwhile, mobs attacked the Jewish communities in Safed, Hebron, and Tiberias and started raping and murdering, forcing the Jews of those cities who survived to flee to Jerusalem (which was back under Egyptian control).
Eventually Egypt took back control, hanged the leaders of the revolt, deported about 10,000 people to Egypt, and moved thousands of Egyptian peasants in to take their place.
People are quibbling over the invented people line, when that’s not even 1/100th as bad as the other part of his quote:
The implication being that the Palestinians should have simply upped and left their homes to allow a bunch of Europeans to come and found a state.
Isn’t it funny that on almost any point that Newt has made so far this is the only one where people are falling over each other to justify the “truthiness” of it. On all other things he’s a complete nutcase easily dismissed but on this one he is “technically” correct.
If Newt Gingrich was running for the Presidency of Palestine, I’d say his campaign would be dead. But he’s running for the American Presidency. Why does he need to worry about offending Palestinians?
It’s not so called Palestinians I’m worried about - it’s so called Israelis b/c it looks like he is running to beat Netanyahu and who wants Newt to run any country let alone Israel.