Gingrich calls Palestinians an "invented" people

[Bosonic]

Source: Reuters

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich thrust himself into controversy on Friday by declaring that the Palestinians are an "invented" people who want to destroy Israel.

The former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives predictably sided with Israel in its decades-old dispute with the Palestinians but took it a step further in an interview with the Jewish Channel.

The cable station posted online its interview with Gingrich, who has risen to the top of Republican polls with voting to start early next year to pick a nominee to challenge Democratic President Barack Obama in the November 2012 election.

Gingrich differed with official U.S. policy that respects the Palestinians as a people deserving of their own state based on negotiations with Israel.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/09/us-usa-campaign-gingrich-idUSTRE7B823Z20111209

[DFab420]

1. It's funny, I always thought all countries were "invented" I mean it's not like America was around

200 years ago....sooooooooo...

fucking Newt...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. sure it was, why else would Jesus be american?

[coalition_unwilling]

54. As the late Repuke Senator Jesse Helms is reported to have said, "If English

was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for the rest of us."

[Ter]

17. America wasn't around in 1811?

:silly:

[AlbertCat]

35. It's funny, I always thought all countries were "invented"

All religious affiliations too...

Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslim.... all invented.

[MH1]

53. wait, didn't Gawd create 'Merika?

In His image or something?

;)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

59. no, I think he 'blissed' it, or sumtin. I dont know all da words

but I think its blist or blissed. Blitz? Schlitz? Yeah, that's the ticket!

[24601]

73. So at the core, you agree with Gingrich that they were invented

and then you continue on - it's not real clear - are you saying you had sex with him or that you will be fucking him? What time frame was that was he married at the time? Or are you saying somebody else was fucking Newt? For the record, I have never fucked Newt and am not looking to do so.

[BeyondGeography]

2. I was thinking we needed to do something to spark terrorist recruitment

Way to go old boy.

[6000eliot]

3. And this moron is supposed to be the intellectual of the Republican party?

[Pachamama]

14. No, he is a "Historian"...

:eyes:

[Little Tich]

32. Yes, he is a historian of sorts. I'm currently reading his book about George Washington,

"To Try Men's Souls: A Novel of George Washington and the Fight for American Freedom". It's one of those patriotic historical biographies that some people are so fond of. It's actually not a bad read, although the characters are a little wooden. For some reason, I hear fifes and drums everytime I read the book.

[Enthusiast]

78. I cannot imagine anything by Newtie

being historically accurate. He has such a twisted notion of the United States of America.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Yes, he is.

Scary, isn't it?

[YvonneCa]

65. Aren't Republicans an 'invented people'...

...??? :7

[Dont call me Shirley]

4. Newty's mind is a self-inflicted invention.

[sarcasmo]

5. Newt is the smart one, funny stuff.

[tularetom]

6. As opposed to the completely uninvented nation of Israel?

[rocktivity]

7. Rocktivity calls Gingrich a "self-invented" person

:eyes:
rocktivity

[cpwm17]

8. Gingrich denies the Palestinians' right to exist

And they have lived in Palestine much longer than whites have lived in the Americas.

Negotiations with Israel will never get the Palestinians anywhere - they're a fraud. Gingrich is the most odious kind of racist there is.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[provis99]

11. and Americans are an ancient, naturally existing people?

Americans are the most self-invented people there are; in fact, we brag about that.

[windowpilot]

12. Just in time for x-mas

Slimy newt.

[Gregorian]

13. OT, but- Republicans are an "invented" people who want to destroy America.

[Turbineguy]

16. Get it here, folks... Step right up.

Get your daily insult right here at the Gingrich booth! Every day, something new. And best of all, it's free! (Until you elect me anyway.)

[EFerrari]

45. Gawd, what an idiot. Lincoln must be spinning in his grave

at this clown crew.

[madrchsod]

18. 5th century bc was the first designation of use of Palestine but...

the people have inhabited this area before the 5th century bc.

this guy could be the next president of the usa

[Igel]

58. Reaching deep into history isn't a good thing.

The "Germans" of today aren't the Germanae of Tacitus, nor are the Ukrainians the Rus'.

Genetics/ethnicity and culture are two entirely different things. Most British are largely Celts, but there's a big difference between those that Boadicea led and the Saxons in the Saxon kingdoms, the Brits under Henry VIII, and the modern British. We tend to know this to be true, then we turn around and tell somebody they should learn "their" language or "their" culture based entirely on their race or ethnicity.

Same with the French. Do you want to claim that people in Marseilles are actually Franks? No? Or perhaps because my ancestors are Gaelic they have some claim on Lithuanian land? No? I hear that kind of foolishness, too. Usually when there's some sort of political belief or claim to power and self-image that we think needs defending.

What Gingrish said about the Palestinians is largely true, in a few different ways. In the 1800s there was no real Palestinian ethnicity in any significant sense. There were regional features that criss-crossed or covered what's now considered "Palestinian", but usually extended far outside of this area (or covered only a small portion of the area). Mostly they were just Arabs--not just as identified by Westerners, but by themselves and their self-appointed spokesfolk. *This* was the distinction that was important, Arab vs Turk, Arab vs. European, Muslim vs. Christian; ethnogenesis, how ethnicities are produced, is all about distinctions and what's important in self-grouping and excluding others. There were people in Palestine but there were Palestinians only in the sense that there were people living in an area that could be called "Palestine".

Another poster says there's no American "ethnicity" (by which he mostly means "culture") and gets it wrong in pointing out sub-groupings in the US. There is a fairly distinctive American culture (not shared by all Americans, to be sure, but by most, still), but for him what mattered was the differences inside the US. Take a Minnesotan, Oregonian, Marylander, and Texan and put them all in China for a month and they'd discover their similarities. Suddenly US/Chinese (of whatever variety) would matter a lot more than the internal differences. In fact, until you're confronted with an "Other" there's not much point in worrying about the larger grouping. Early Americans--in the sense "American citizens"--considered themselves British or German. Only after there was an opposition did the differences become more important than the commonalities. (Then, in WWI and II, commonalities came to the fore again.)

One problem is grouping the "Palestinians" geographically (since most cultures are still rooted in areal features). This means putting borders on "Palestine." Is it the Ottoman or British or Roman definition? Perhaps the post-1948 or 1967 definition? It matters because that delimits the people that we tend to think of (externally) as having a shared set of values and traditions.

Some of the people had genes that had been in the area for millennia. Others were Circassians that the Ottomans deported in the 1800s when they were uppity. Some were the descendants of Arab migrants or invaders--migrants first noted a little "BCE", the real invasion force happening in the 7th century (with waves of Bedouin to follow, as they resettled into areas under what amounted to an Arab empire). More than a few are probably the descendants of Islamized Christianized Hellenized Jews, in deep denial over their ancestry. Their clan affiliation--an Arab import, to a large extent, based on older Arab clans--was paramount. "Palestinian" didn't matter--it wasn't the important distinction.

It mattered when more Jews settled in the area. Then there was an important distinction to be made. But even now there are not just more Palestinians in the diaspora than in Palestine (post-1967 borders), but in Jordan. Those in Jordan have, for the most part, their roots there--their families and clans didn't settle there after 1947, but before that. They share a common set of dialectal features and cultural values, have clan ties, etc., etc. But the "Palestinian people" was partly formed in contrast to the Jews that were settling in the area after 1890 and much more strongly formed in contrast to Israel after 1967. Even in the '70s in Jordan there was a strong contrast between the Arabian ruling group and the Palestinian substratum in the western part of the country.

The problem is that Gingrich's dictum is perceived not as dealing with ethnogenesis, or as even involving ethnogenesis, but as the denial of a political claim for land and power rooted in claims of being indigenous. If the Palestinian people aren't ancient--with some sort of lineal descent from millennia ago--then how can they justify dominant access not just to the land but to the "holy places" and cultural relicts? Since religion is part of culture, it only makes sense that I've heard claims that the original inhabitants were actually Muslim (not in the Muhammed sense, but close enough). That the Jews were never there; or were a small number that were driven out--so Jesus was a Muslim Palestinian. That the customs have been the same for the last few thousand years. Even that Aramaic is Arabic (that's a lark)--even as it's denied that some of the "hard words" in the Qur'aan are actually Aramaic borrowings? The claims are motivated by ethnic hatred and claims on land and power.

There's strong motivation to exaggerate the claims and strong motivation to react very forcefully when the weakness of the claims are threatened by even off-hand comments. After all, it's sometimes easier to win a battle by denying the enemy the chance to fight you than to actually engage in a battle, even if it's just a battle of wits.

The Palestinian people don't need their inflated, frequently ludicrous and embarrassing claims to justify a claim on land and self-determination. They also don't need people trying to justify those claims that are ludicrous and embarrassing.

[coalition_unwilling]

61. Hogwash. The Palestinians are no more an 'invented' people than the Israelis,

Americans, or even Mexicans are.

What Gingrich says is therefore largely false, not true. If you have not yet done so, you need to read his comments in full for a sense of just houw outrageiously false they are.

[Archae]

19. Aren't Palestinians originally fro the area now called Syria?

I doubt they are descendants of the original Caananites.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. Hunh? I don't even know where to start. - n/t

[Zhade]

66. No. Try researching actual history, not religious myths.

NT!

[FreeBillClinton]

20. So does that mean native Americans are invented too?

[Odin2005]

21. And we aren't? Hell, IMO there is no such thing as an "American" ethnicity.

Our ethnicities are our regional cultures. I, a Minnesotan, have far more in common culturally with somebody from Massachusetts than I do somebody from the Appalachia, we are different cultures. Why? it all depends on which Europeans settled first, Minnesota's first white settlers were from New England, thus we are part of the Yankee culture.

[FarLeftFist]

22. Uh, wasn't Israel invented in 1948?

[PSPS]

24. Yes. In fact, its 'invention' cost the Palestinians their land.

Yes, Newt is "the intellectual" who has never seen a map from 1945.

[DissedByBush]

38. The Europeans were drawing the maps

And at one time the British Mandate of Palestine included Jordan.

Tell the Jordanians they need to give up their country. They're not going to like that since they crushed the Palestinians in Jordan back in the 60s in order to keep their rule.

Oh, I thought only the Israelis did that.

I like the map that had one contiguous Jewish state just about where the current boundaries are including the lands Israel fairly won while fighting off the Arab invasions.

[cpwm17]

40. Winning lands by military conquest

Now that should give you a lot of support on a liberal website.

You made some major logical errors throughout your post.

[DissedByBush]

42. Not by conquest

By defense. They were amassing all around Israel's borders, planning to attack (there is hard evidence of this).

IMHO, if a country attacks you and you repel them, then any land you gain during that is rightfully yours. Israel did not lay claim to any Egyptian territory from the initial preemptive air raid that took out the Egyptian bombers.

All Israel did is prevent the conquest of their entire country by the amassed armies of the neighboring Arab states, supported by the arms and troops from other Arab states.

The Palestinian refugees figured they'd go to Syria and Jordan and wait a few months for the Arabs to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, then they could return.

They didn't count on Israel winning. The Syrians and Jordanians didn't either, and they do not like the Palestinians in their countries.

I'm not saying this as an Israeli loyalist. The deliberate attack on the USS Liberty in that war was unforgivable, they are not innocents by a long shot in this and other matters.

But I would come to an agreement with you: How about all refugees from this whole Arab/Israeli mess just get to go home, and the UN enforces that they receive full and equal rights and are not persecuted?

Do you think that is just and fair?

[cpwm17]

47. The Arab armies didn't start the war

The Zionist started the war by ethnically cleansing the Arabs. That is why the Palestinians were in the neighboring countries. They didn't leave voluntarily - that's ridiculous.

Almost all of the fighting occurred in the territory that was designated for the Palestinians; so if you claim that the UN (illegal) partition had any legitimacy, then you must accept that it was the Zionists that attacked Palestine.

[hack89]

49. No - the Arab countries invaded first

and they invaded Israeli territory. The Arabs lost all that territory because they got their asses kicked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War#Intervention_by_Arab_League_countries

[The Stranger]

77. PAGING NEWT . . . WE HAVE ONE HERE FOR YA!

[coalition_unwilling]

56. Are you denying that Israel forcibly expelled many indigenous

people from their ancestral lands? If so, you are out of step with current historical scholarship. In other words, there is a broad general consensus among even historians who support Israel's right to exist that Israel ethnically cleansed territories it conquered in 1947-48.

Your post makes it sound as if all the indigenous folk just voluntarily got up and left because they figured Israel would 'lose' and they could return soon thereafter. Current historical scholarship pretty definitively contradicts you and demonstrates that much of the exodus of indigenous people was far from any common-sense use of the term "voluntary."

Not sure I need to add citations for this. Just let me know if you would like a bibliography.

[DissedByBush]

63. So do you support the return of all refugees?

Let them come back, full rights guaranteed? No persecution?

[coalition_unwilling]

64. I support a theoretical 'right of return' to be secured by a

'land for peace' swap. The reason I say a 'theoretical right of return' is that, in many cases, returning to ancestral lands may not be practical or in the best interests of the indigenous folks affected for any number of reasons. Thus, that 'right of return' can be otherwise compensated by reparations, i.e. 'land for peace.'

[DissedByBush]

70. Great idea

Do remember that over 800,000 Jews were kicked out of Muslim lands, or persecuted so much that they had to leave, after Israel was founded.

They and their descendents qualify for the program you describe.

Expect a quarter million to go back to Morocco, and over 100,000 to go to Iraq, plus descendants.

Do you still believe in the right of return?

[coalition_unwilling]

71. Wow, what is it with the set-ups, drive bys and 'gotcha' moments here lately? The 'right

of return' is a trope used to describe one negotiating position taken by Palestinians over the past half century, not an abstract right belonging to Jews displaced from Morocco or Iraq.

If you're trying to suggest that displaced Palestinians' right of return is only valid if Jews' right of return is also valid, then you are the only person making such a claim to the best of my knowledge. In other words, many people dispute the Palestinians' right of return and many like myself believe it exists. But, aside from you, no one I know says the Palestinians only qualify for a right of return if displaced Jews also qualify for the same. By so doing, your are stretching ingenuity to its limits and making reasoned debate about the actual world we inhabit well nigh impossible.

I won't put you on Ignore for it, but really, don't you have anything better to do with your time?

[DissedByBush]

74. It's a test for bias, you failed n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

75. Oh well, you failed my test for decency and are now on

my Ignore list. Hope I never have to see you or read any of your BS on DU3.

[hack89]

50. Jordon owned the West Bank from 48 to 67

did they steal it from the Palestinians?

[shanti]

25. exactly

that's one thing repukes have on dems, they are masters at projection. grinch needs his ass kicked.

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. Right! nt

[Crabby Appleton]

57. History didn't begin in 1948

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XcC34GSkwOk/TcjcRH6LwhI/AAAAAAAAABM/jfmUzIi2R-U/s1600/map+of+the+kingdom+of+David+and+Salomon.jpg

[coalition_unwilling]

60. If you have not already done so, I heartily recommend you read Joseph

Heller's 'God Knows." It will have you rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter. And the sections about Uriah and Bathsheeba are pretty friggin' awesome too.

[classysassy]

23. Evil,hateful politicians seeking the approval of Israel.

Remove money from politics and lets have fair elections.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. now wouldn't he make a great representative for America on the world stage?

He would make George W. Bush look like Abraham Lincoln.

[pam4water]

27. Scratches head? huh?

[ThoughtCriminal]

29. Did he really say that?

Without using his favorite word?

I would expect him to say " Fundamentally, Palestinians are fundamentally an "invented" people who want to fundamentally destroy Israel."

[onehandle]

30. Freak. nt

[DRoseDARs]

31. Technically the name, yes... in the 5th century BCE by Greeks.

Modern "Palestinians" developed as a concept of a distinct people in the 1830s and as the Middle East was being carved into artificial nations before World War One. See, it's topics like this where sound bites blithely ignoring the full breadth and width of Human history do not an in-depth discussion make.

[unkachuck]

33. '...Palestinians are an "invented" people...'

....oh that's rich, coming from a right-wing fascist pretending to be a democrat....

'...who want to destroy Israel.'

....c'mon Oldt, your ass is showing....I may wish to "destroy" the Moon, but it's not going to happen....

[scentopine]

34. Say what you want, but he's making waves and in the news...

gaining ground. Democrats could easily choke him on his own words - but they are oddly silent, allowing this man's slurry of stupidity to go unanswered.

That's how the rightwing gains ground. The new democrats are too weak and unprincipled to mount a full scale assault(*) for fear they may offend their republican base.

By compulsive cheek turning and appeasment, the leader of the democratic party is enabling jowly monsters like this blowhard to take center stage.


(*) on edit - however, the new democrats do reserve whatever pathetic muster they have for scolding liberals.

[totodeinhere]

48. I think that many Democrats are silent about him because they want to sit back

and give him all the rope he needs to hang himself. If he actually got the nomination, which I still doubt will happen, there will be plenty of time to get him then.

[scentopine]

52. The problem is the lizard boy gains credibility and democrats move more to the right...

to meet the extremists "in the middle". In fact - that IS the problem. The far right wing is now mainstream and democrats are not challenging this because they want to stay just a millimeter to the left of whereever the extreme right wing is at the time. So we have Obama as a Reagan republican - stuffing the executive office to the gills with Wall Street CEOs and operatives.

I lose more and more respect for democratic leadership with each passing year that living in this country becomes more and more like govt. enforced servitude to the rich.

We don't have politicians, we have chambermaids for the rich.

Democrats are letting the right wing in both parties change what it means to be an American. It now means unrestrained violence, greed, torture, surveillance, drones, bank fraud, criminal CEOs. labor exploitation in Asia, police state, on and on.

Democrats are not fighting this - they are enabling it by staying silent except for blowing hot air rhetoric at election time.

After which they are back on their knees in front of wall street and telling liberals who complain to shut the fuck up.

So, democrats are quietly enabling the right wing to dominate politcal direction in the nation. Things are going to get much worse before they get better. Obama isn't helping, he's enabling the enemy.

[yellowcanine]

39. Newt Gingrich is an "invented" person. No real person could be that stupid.

[SoapBox]

41. Well...WTF?

What the hell? I cannot believe the idiots in the GOPBagger Clown Car...man, idiots.

[StarsInHerHair]

43. moron never looked at a map

[roguevalley]

44. rv calls newt half a man

[DCKit]

46. As a self-identified human being, I find that incredibly offensive. nt

[Hotler]

51. Newt is a shit stain. eom.

[plumbob]

62. Safe to assume Newt has a final solution in mind for the Palestinians,

then, since Israel is everything, and Palestinians are nothing.

[Paladin]

67. Keep Up The Good Work, Newt. Jeez, How Lucky Can Dems Get? (n/t)

[yurbud]

68. name the US pol who got in trouble for supporting Israel too extremely

I couldn't think of one either.

[closeupready]

69. There's something ironically satisfying in his statement.

I don't know what the word is exactly, but I do recall that American muslims generally voted for Bush in 2004, since they are more likely to be Republican.

They can see here where that support will get them. I hope this wakes them up and turns them Democratic.

[populistleftist1]

72. Palestinians == Philistines from the Bible

duh

[ElMuertoMonkey]

76. So are the Israelis an "invented people" as well

If the Palestineans are an "invented" people because, quote, "they never had a state, and because they were part of the Ottoman Empire before Israel's creation".

Well, the Jews never had a state, and they were part of numerous European countries before the creation of Israel.

So are the Israelis an "invented people" as well