This has become a story in recent days, because Newt Gingrich brought it up. He asserts that the Palestinians are an invented people and that the term has only been in general use since 1977.
I remember 1977 and I'm pretty sure that Newt is right. But it falls under the "true, but irrelevant" category. We are now nearly 35 years on from 1977 and things have changed. There will be, and must be, a Palestinian state of some sort in the future. What it looks like is still open to debate. The converse is also true. There has been a Jewish state called Israel since 1948. It must exist, too.
12 comments:
True but not necessarily irrelevant. Most of the Palestinians STILL live in "refugee camps" despite the fact that of those driven out of Israel in 1948, only a few still survive. These are the ONLY refugees recognized by the UN on this basis, so "Palestinians" were invented by the UN just the way the state of Israel was.
Moreover, the original Palestinians were not a nation, but rather a portion of what would become Jordan, another "invention" of the UN, originally called "Palestine" by the British governors of the area. So the current "Palestinians" are people who had a homeland, and still have a homeland, but are refusing it in an effort to push a UN-recognized (and created) nation into the sea.
J. Ewing
OK, how about "Canaanites"?
and the jews were dispersed from the land in 70AD.
there were very few of them left in 1948 when a nation was created for them.
palestine is a geographical region. those that dwelled there did adopt customs and a manner of speaking that was different than arabs know known as Jordanians, or Lebanese, or egypt, or syria. there is an identity there, wehther the judeophiles want to accept ii or not.
there are no canaanites. the jews killed them all when they took their land.
Newt reminds me a little of sports analysts Joe Theisman and Tim McCarver. Lots of knowledge but not a lot of utility; you'd feel better if they weren't there.
The only "Palestine" that existed was the one defined by the British government when they became governors of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. That Palestine included all of what now constitutes Israel and Jordan, together. It is doubtful their "culture" would be that unique in the 100 years since those borders were arbitrarily defined.
Since then, yes, the people we now call Palestinians have a distinct culture, based on an insane hatred of Jews and of Israel. Hardly something worth preserving, let alone rewarding with their own nation. Sure, some of these folks were wronged, or more correctly their ancestors were, when Israel was arbitrarily carved out from where they had been living, but again, those things could eventually be settled among men of good will.
J. Ewing
continuing to build jewish settlments on land previously set aside for a palestinian state is not an act of good will.
personally, i expect the israelis to behave a little better. they hold the power and the high ground, and should show more of the moral responsibility that goes with it.
True, the Israelis are far from faultless. But the "Palestinians" attacked Israel, and Israel took the land from which the attack was launched. Those attacks continue, but by different and more barbaric ways.
You would think that at some point Israel would have a "partner for peace" in the future Palestinian state, somewhere. So far, it isn't happening. The last guy that really tried was quickly assassinated by his own people.
J. Ewing
"The last guy that really tried was quickly assassinated by his own people."
you mean Rabin? of course you didnt. what happen to that partner in peace from Israel?
the war of 48, as you are alluding to, is not completely as you've heard. the israelis where geared up for war, being unsatisfied with the land they had agreed to, fully intending to grab more in the hostilities that were inevitable.
they grabbed what they wanted, and ethnically cleansed through violence and massacres, creating fear that led other arabs to flee for their lives.
they call the UN mandate their existential justification, but never intended on abiding by it.
hypocrites and devils, both sides.
"hypocrites and devils, both sides."
Gino, you have your history pretty much right, though I am always resistant to assigning "intent" to anybody. I think we can talk about the facts of history, about who started the 67 war, for example, and we can talk about the consequences of historical events – the Israeli occupation of formerly Arab territory. We can talk about the original UN mandate as a fact, also, but that was an impracticality doomed from the start and misses too much of the current reality to offer much towards a solution. Again, my opinion is that Mr. Gingrich's comment has more to do with driving political correctness out of the search for a solution then it does a strict historical accuracy. That may actually be helpful to finding a solution.
J. Ewing
NO, gingrich's comment has everything to do with scoring points among judeophiles within the GOP primary base, and nothing at all to do with a solution.
telling one side that they really dont have a side to recognise is not a solution.... its an invitation to extended violence and resistence.
it works for Bibi. the violence keeps him re-elected, powerful, and in a position to live a life much better than those he represents...
and keeps the american dollars flowing to israel...
so that more of the status quo can carry on...
because political careers depend upon it...
allowing politicians to continue living at levels far superior than those they claim to represent...
Gino, you previously suggested that Israel should have more "moral responsibility." I am assuming that you are giving them moral authority as the victims of Arab attacks past. But the reverse is also true. If the Palestinians are the victims of Israeli occupation, and they are, why don't they use that moral authority to pursue justice and peace, rather than hatred and terrorism? Insulting them by telling them they aren't historically a nation can't possibly make them any madder, in either sense of the word, than they already are. They have been essentially offered their own state many times and have not only refused every time, but proven that they are incapable of managing one.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment