Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)

[Bloggingheads]

[Starwatcher162536]

Mr. Dougherty writes for The American Conservative? Yucky. From his demeanor here I am very surprised.

Edit: My apologies to Mr. Dougherty and The American Conservative (Which I am not familiar with). I was confusing The American Conservative and The American Thinker.

[thouartgob]

Despite a very good performance in the debate I still have a very hard time seeing Newt going all the way so if there is to be Yet Another Anti-Romney candidate it is gonna be Huntsman and not a Perry rematch. This time around the Anti-Romney candidate is going to have a weaker Romney to deal with and with the possible narrative of Huntsman coming back from %1 he gets an Easter Bump.

I don't have any quibbles about the diavlog which I thought was good. Dougherty's take on the Obama speech was thoughtful and nothing like the pearl-clutching going on on the Right side of the aisle. I do have to say that it is still early in the game for 2012 and I believe that Obama has a few tricks up his sleeve with the incentives for Republican congress[wo]men maybe changing as events in their party's nominations take shape.

[Diane1976]

I always like diavlogs with Michael, and I enjoyed this one with Daniel. One thing that struck me was their conversation about the state of the US, inequality, etc., and their apparent feeling that nothing could be done about it. They might be right but young men like them shouldn't feel that way, because they are the ones who could make a difference. They seem too old for their age. C'mon guys! There have been many times in history when that might have seemed the case, even far more so than now, but people overcame far bigger challenges.

I watched the Republican debate tonight, so much better than the other two I watched, on foreign policy. Huntsman and Gingrich really had a chance to present their ideas in a meaningful way. Although I have always thought it would be better to have political candidates, like these two, in more of a conversation, interacting with each other, with a moderator just moving them on to different topics.

I, personally, don't like the politics of any of the Republican candidates and I really don't like the party, but, putting that aside, I thought they both did very well, but Huntsman clearly outclassed Gingrich by a long shot, IMO. Gingrich was good but he seemed from the past.

Huntsman was particularly impressive when he talked about China, not just because he was the ambassador, but because he showed some real insight. I think the relationship between US and China is the most important in the world and will become more so. The idea of a president who knows it the way he does, who can even speak their language, really impressed me.

BTW, something that came up in the diavlog was the fact that Huntsman didn't use his position as ambassador to attack Obama based on inside info. That shows integrity. If, while he was ambassador, he saw something being done that was illegal or unethical he should have spoken up. To drag such things up after he leaves public service, for political gain, would be wrong, and likely against conflict of interest guidelines, or should be.

Huntsman has some of the same ability to be moving as Obama. At times I felt like I was watching an old Jimmy Stewart movie. Politics aside, I like him, as a person. I think he would have the best chance against Obama but I hope, for Obama's sake, he wont be the nominee.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

I watched the Republican debate tonight, so much better than the other two I watched, on foreign policy. Huntsman and Gingrich really had a chance to present their ideas in a meaningful way.

I kept wondering what debate you were talking about. I discovered today that you were talking about the Lincoln-Douglas debate in New Hampshire.

[Diane1976]

I missed the first part of the debate, but my biggest disappointment in Huntsman was his statements about Israel. I think anybody who would accuse someone like Obama of not being pro-Israel enough is playing a divisive type of politics with an important issue. I care about Israel and I don't think they do.

I liked Gingrich except for when he went off on his rant about Islam, in which he always draws comparisons between radical Islamists and communists or Nazis. I consider that ridiculous and offensive. Also his talk about regime change in Iran. Huntsman was quite clever in sounding aggressive on Iran, for the sake of Republicans, I suppose, but, as far as substance is concerned, I think his position is probably no worse than Obama's.

PS: I didn't get Huntsman's recent waffling on climate change. I don't see how that would have helped him with either side, because it seemed to me that he ended up with a position that made no sense from any point of view. I wish Michael had talked about that.

Another PS, on Israel: There's another thing I didn't like about Huntsman on that. He really knows foreign policy and he gave me a creepy impression of the opposite of what so many people claim, i.e. that Israel and Jewish Americans are causing US foreign policy to be against US interest, which I think is absurd and offensive. He gave me the impression of the US using Israel, and its understandable fears, as a kind of pawn for the purpose of furthering US interest, which is worse.

[Wonderment]

Gingrich is really stirring up a lot of anti-Israeli and anti-American hatred with his inflammatory (and stupid and inaccurate) comments on Palestinians.

It's hard to walk back these remarks down the road if he is the candidate or (God forbid!) the president. First, he said the Palestinians were "an invented people" and followed up with "These people are terrorists."

The negation of Palestinian existence is a staple of the extreme right wing Settler movement in Israel (people that make Netanyahu look like a liberal peacenik), so the Gingrich rant is getting a lot of press in the region as an example of how the American presidency could once again turn very ugly and dangerous.

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Gingrich is really stirring up a lot of anti-Israeli and anti-American hatred with his inflammatory (and stupid and inaccurate) comments on Palestinians.

It's hard to walk back these remarks down the road if he is the candidate or (God forbid!) the president. First, he said the Palestinians were "an invented people" and followed up with "These people are terrorists."

The negation of Palestinian existence is a staple of the extreme right wing Settler movement in Israel (people that make Netanyahu look like a liberal peacenik), so the Gingrich rant is getting a lot of press in the region as an example of how the American presidency could once again turn very ugly and dangerous.

Definitely horrible. I heard that, but forgot which one said it.

To be honest, I actually don't understand why thoughtful, intelligent and decent seeming people like Michael and Daniel, and others who appear here, support these people or this party or this awful movement. I wish one of them would explain it some time.

I get that they hate the Democrats for supporting big social programs like health care and what not, but actually most liberals have moved pretty far away from being wedded to really big government programs to help people, recognizing the problems that can be associated with that, or really intrusive intervention on behalf of the public, also recognizing that this can also have unintended negative consequences.

Originally Posted by Diane1976

Definitely horrible. I heard that, but forgot which one said it.

To be honest, I actually don't understand why thoughtful, intelligent and decent seeming people like Michael and Daniel, and others who appear here, support these people or this party or this awful movement.

Diane1976's worldview: radical Islamists good, Republicans bad.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

Definitely horrible. I heard that, but forgot which one said it.

According to the GOP candidates, Palestine is now a land without a people, instead it has an invented people. But furthermore, it is also now an invented people without a land, as Rick Santorum in the debate repeated the claim that the West Bank belongs to Israel.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Gingrich is really stirring up a lot of anti-Israeli and anti-American hatred with his inflammatory (and stupid and inaccurate) comments on Palestinians.

Stupid and inaccurate? Why don't you indulge us by providing some historical evidence.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Gingrich's comment (on the reality of Palestinian identity) may have been stupid in that it is unnecessarily provocative and serves little purpose, but in point of fact, it isn't inaccurate. Gasp?

Shall we go through Fatimid/Abbasid/Seljik/Ottoman history on the matter?

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Gingrich is really stirring up a lot of anti-Israeli and anti-American hatred with his inflammatory (and stupid and inaccurate) comments on Palestinians.

Agreed, but it is certainly suggestive that there's an audience for that kind of thing on the right, and this is related to my ongoing discussion with ledocs elsewhere, I think.

There was a weird exchange in the debate where Romney seemed to be trying to rebuke Gingrich for this but then they end up arguing over who is closer with Bibi.

Romney: Of course you [Gingrich] stand firm and stand for the truth, but you don't speak for Israel.

Gingrich: I didn't.

Romney: If Bibi Netanyahu wants to say what you said, let him say it. But our ally, the people of Israel should be able to take their own positions and not have us negotiate for them.

Gingrich: Can I just say one last thing? Because I didn't speak for the people of Israel. I spoke as a historian who has looked at the world stage for a very long time. I've known Bibi [Netanyahu] since 1984. I feel quite confident an amazing number of Israelis found it nice to have an American tell the truth about the war they are in the middle of and the casualties they're taking and the people who surround them who say, you do not have the right to exist and we want to destroy you.

Romney: I've also known Bibi Netanyahu for a long time. We worked together at Boston Consulting Group. And the last thing Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is not just a person who's a historian, but someone who is also running for president of the United States stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in his neighborhood. And if I'm president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability and make sure that I don't say anything like this.

Anything I say that can affect a place with rockets going in, with people dying. I don't do anything that would harm that process. And, therefore, before I made a statement of that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend, Bibi Netanyahu and say, would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do? Let's work together because we're partners. I'm not a bomb-thrower. Rhetorically or literally.

[Wonderment]

Yes, I thought that was an adequate answer by Romney, except NONE of them disputed the idea that Palestinians were in fact terrorists AND invented people. They just disputed the prudence of asserting it gratuitously.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Yes, I thought that was an adequate answer by Romney, except NONE of them disputed the idea that Palestinians were in fact terrorists AND invented people. They just disputed the prudence of asserting it gratuitously.

Or perhaps whether Bibi wanted them to be saying it.

But, yeah, I think the underlying point Romney was trying to make -- not prudent! -- was okay, or as okay as seems to be possible within the constraints that he obviously sees as limiting him.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Yes, I thought that was an adequate answer by Romney, except NONE of them disputed the idea that Palestinians were in fact terrorists AND invented people.

There was one guy. I wonder who? Video.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Yes, I thought that was an adequate answer by Romney, except NONE of them disputed the idea that Palestinians were in fact terrorists AND invented people. They just disputed the prudence of asserting it gratuitously.

You're mischaracterizing Paul again, like you were doing last week.

When Paul was asked if he agreed with Gingrich's characterization, he initially said "no," but then followed up by saying: "... technically and historically, yes, under the Ottoman Empire the Palestinians didn't have a state, but neither did Israel..."

And then, "historically, under the Ottoman Empire that is technically correct."

Wonderment observed that "NONE of them disputed the idea that Palestinians were in fact terrorists AND invented people." Paul said nothing about the terrorist claim, and twice confirmed that Palestinians were an invented people.

The facts are the opposite of what you claim - once again.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

You're mischaracterizing Paul again, like you were doing last week.

Uhh, what?

When Paul was asked if he agreed with Gingrich's characterization, he initially said "no," but then followed up by saying: "... technically and historically, yes, under the Ottoman Empire the Palestinians didn't have a state, but neither did Israel..."

And then, "historically, under the Ottoman Empire that is technically correct."

Wonderment observed that "NONE of them disputed the idea that Palestinians were in fact terrorists AND invented people." Paul said nothing about the terrorist claim, and twice confirmed that Palestinians were an invented people.

The facts are the opposite of what you claim - once again.

It's amazing that you come up with these conclusions.

What did he say before "technically and historically"? Do you not feel ashamed for your out-of-context cherry picking? When asked directly about whether he thought Palestinians were an invented people, he flat out said, "NO! and it's just stirring up trouble."

Why leave that part out? That was the essence of the answer.

No shame.

I'm sure you don't believe me. Why should you? It's just right in the damn video with his own words. So, here's what Forbes says. But you can't trust them either because they're, like, part of the Koch conspiracy or something, man.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Uhh, what?




It's amazing that you come up with these conclusions.

What did he say before "technically and historically"? Do you not feel ashamed for your out-of-context cherry picking? When asked directly about whether he thought Palestinians were an invented people, he flat out said, "NO! and it's just stirring up trouble."

Why leave that part out? That was the essence of the answer.

No shame.

I'm sure you don't believe me. Why should you? It's just right in the damn video with his own words. So, here's what Forbes says. But you can't trust them either because they're, like, part of the Koch conspiracy or something, man.

In cases like this, I find it instructive to see people arguing around the point, acting as if the assumption is obvious. Twinswords and Wonderment are exorcized by what should be a truisim.

In what way is what Gingrich said about the historicity of Palestinian identity in error?

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

In what way is what Gingrich said about the historicity of Palestinian identity in error?

For a start he said 'Palestinian did not become a common term until after 1977' despite it being mentioned twice in the rather short Balfour Deceleration some 60 years earlier, and both Jews and Arabs having passports and the like with British Palestine stamped on them.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". - Balfour 1917

He also said the right of return was based on a false claim, goodness knows how he arrived at that position.

But does wonder what the response be if he made similar claims about Jewish Israelis being invented, which seems closer to the truth seeing as they had to travel across continents and adopt a new language and forge a totally new identity.

But put all that to one side, I think it reveals the colonial attitudes underpinning the Israel/Palestinian debate in America which is fueled by the Israel lobby. There is footage out there somewhere of an Israel supporter wearing an Native American head dress outside the White House during some kind of rally in support of Israel.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

For a start he said 'Palestinian did not become a common term until after 1977' despite it being mentioned twice in the rather short Balfour Deceleration some 60 years earlier, and both Jews and Arabs having passports and the like with British Palestine stamped on them.

You've mistaken the point. There has long been a place called Palestine. It is based on a Greek word. The Romans also had a variation of the word. There have not, on the other hand, been an ethnic group which considered itself to be "Palestinian". The Jews didn't. The Arabs didn't. Now, on the other hand, there have long been Arabs who considered themselves to be "Egyptians" or "Syrians", or even Jordanians, though that last one is a little dicier.

But does wonder what the response be if he made similar claims about Jewish Israelis being invented, which seems closer to the truth seeing as they had to travel across continents and adopt a new language and forge a totally new identity.

The Israeli identity is entirely invented. It does, however, have a clear origin point that has nothing to do with Arabs, and whose narrative of ethnic joining is pretty clear.

No one would deny that. What is amusing to see is the religious left pulling their hair out by the roots at the suggestion that the Palestinian identity is invented. Which it is.

This is about the hyper sensitivity of Palestinians, not any realistic discussion about history. This is catechism.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

You've mistaken the point. There has long been a place called Palestine. It is based on a Greek word. The Romans also had a variation of the word. There have not, on the other hand, been an ethnic group which considered itself to be "Palestinian". The Jews didn't. The Arabs didn't. Now, on the other hand, there have long been Arabs who considered themselves to be "Egyptians" or "Syrians", or even Jordanians, though that last one is a little dicier.

Obviously Arthur Balfour disagrees with you, as within the deceleration he specifically mentions the non-Jewish communities of Palestine. That suggests that the British recognized some Palestinian communities, ie Palestinians. While the people of the region might closer identify with their tribe, town, religion, whatever, the British obviously constructed another parallel identity long before 1977.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The Israeli identity is entirely invented. It does, however, have a clear origin point that has nothing to do with Arabs, and whose narrative of ethnic joining is pretty clear.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, are you referring to a quasi-European origin, which supplanted Sephardic/Arab Jewish identity?

No one would deny that. What is amusing to see is the religious left pulling their hair out by the roots at the suggestion that the Palestinian identity is invented. Which it is.

This is about the hyper sensitivity of Palestinians, not any realistic discussion about history. This is catechism.

I can only imagine figures like Abe Foxman would soon be reduced to tweezers and leg hair such claims be made about Israel being invented. Only today the
Simon Wiesenthal Center cited Abbas' opening paragraph to the UN the number 1 most Anti-semitic/Anti-Israel moment of last year.

People are right to be alarmed about Newts comments, when it is accompanied with talk about all the land in the West Bank belonging to Israel and an Israel which is both banning loud speakers on mosques and burning them down, along with new settlements every week. If the people are an supposed invention of our hand, then we owe them an additional duty of care not less.

His comments where not because of his love of historical accuracy, but to try and devalue the Palestinians. During his answer at the debate, he said there was no difference between Hamas and Fatah - Americans Presidential Candidates, the mother's of invention.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Obviously Arthur Balfour disagrees with you, as within the deceleration he specifically mentions the non-Jewish communities of Palestine. That suggests that the British recognized some Palestinian communities, ie Palestinians. While the people of the region might closer identify with their tribe, town, religion, whatever, the British obviously constructed another parallel identity long before 1977.

Where are you reading any of this? The Balfour declaration speaks about "Jews and non-Jews" in a territorial designation called Palestine. The declaration isn't even aimed at indigenous Jews. So he's speaking to European Jewry. So according to you, English Jews are "Palestinians" as well?

Obviously not. Balfour is making no statement about Palestinians, as people. He's making promises about Palestine, as land.

Again, no one denies there were human beings in Palestine prior to 1967. The argument is about the conception of national identity. And "Palestinian" was a non-existent political concept.

I can only imagine figures like Abe Foxman would soon be reduced to tweezers and leg hair such claims be made about Israel being invented. Only today the
Simon Wiesenthal Center cited Abbas' opening paragraph to the UN the number 1 most Anti-semitic/Anti-Israel moment of last year.

I doubt it.

His comments where not because of his love of historical accuracy, but to try and devalue the Palestinians. During his answer at the debate, he said there was no difference between Hamas and Fatah - Americans Presidential Candidates, the mother's of invention.

Are you arguing that facts aren't to be spoken because you disagree with the outcomes of their extrapolation? I'm a member of the reality based community, so I don't share that view.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Where are you reading any of this? The Balfour declaration speaks about "Jews and non-Jews" in a territorial designation called Palestine. The declaration isn't even aimed at indigenous Jews. So he's speaking to European Jewry. So according to you, English Jews are "Palestinians" as well?

How do you reach that question regarding English Jews. Like it or not the Brits in 1917 had an idea about a Palestinian people, separate from Egyptians or Saudis. A few years later these people had passports with British Palestine stamped across them in gold letters, which would probably need renewing long before 1977 rolled around.

Obviously not. Balfour is making no statement about Palestinians, as people. He's making promises about Palestine, as land.

He's making assurances that the people of that land are safe guarded. I think it's safe to say that they were acknowledged as a political reality, the same way talk about splitting Iraq into thirds would have viewed the Iraqi Kurdish population, despite there being Kurds elsewhere.

If you want to really test whether Palestinians existed before 1948 investigate the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the relationship with the British, or look at how his critics today, use him against the Palestinians.

Again, no one denies there were human beings in Palestine prior to 1967. The argument is about the conception of national identity. And "Palestinian" was a non-existent political concept.

You have just demonstrated that it was a political concept, a concept that the British were articulating to European Jewry.

Are you arguing that facts aren't to be spoken because you disagree with the outcomes of their extrapolation? I'm a member of the reality based community, so I don't share that view.

Some facts are more equal than others when it comes to presidential debates. If you think Newt's could have made similar comments had about Israelis and not faced accusations of anti-semitism then your expectation of reality is different to mine.

I remember Helen Thomas was fired when she said Israelis should get out and go back home to Europe, well according to some GOP candidates the 'invented people' have 'invented claims' and certainly no right to live in the land that they have been living in for centuries or at least as long as America has existed.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

How do you reach that question regarding English Jews. Like it or not the Brits in 1917 had an idea about a Palestinian people, separate from Egyptians or Saudis.

Yes. Syrians. They thought of them as Arabs first, and then if secondarily, as Syrians.

As to how I reach that conclusion the Balfour declaration is about European Jewry, not Arabs.

A few years later these people had passports with British Palestine stamped across them in gold letters, which would probably need renewing long before 1977 rolled around.

I suggest you read my reply to Wonderment. The "Palestinians" thought of themselves as Syrians. If at all.

He's making assurances that the people of that land are safe guarded. I think it's safe to say that they were acknowledged as a political reality, the same way talk about splitting Iraq into thirds would have viewed the Iraqi Kurdish population, despite there being Kurds elsewhere.

LOL The Balfour declaration is about a Jewish homeland that respects non-Jewish residents. It doesn't even specify about Muslims, let alone Arabs. For all the portion of the Declaration you posted could be talking about, he's referring to Greek Maronite priests. Are they Palestinians? He says "Palestinian" no where.

Look, you're in the weeds. This is about a people, not a land. South Tyrol is a geographic area in Europe that has been inhabited by Germans and Italians. There are no "Tyrol people". The Germans demanded the place when it was inhabited by Germans, now that it isn't, it doesn't. No declaration about "the inhabitants of South Tyrol" by Germany speaks to a national consciousness of Tyrol denizens. I specifically posted the request of Arab residents of Palestine at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, where they say they want to be part of Syria. They say this because the Arabs thought of "Palestine" as a Zionist ploy. And they were right. Because Palestine was Syrian.

If you want to really test whether Palestinians existed before 1948 investigate the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the relationship with the British, or look at how his critics today, use him against the Palestinians.

Eh? The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is a Palestinian according to Palestinians. Present tense. Historically he was an Arab who considered Palestine to be part of a larger Arab polity, not a separate national entity.

You have just demonstrated that it was a political concept, a concept that the British were articulating to European Jewry.

And not about Arabs.

Some facts are more equal than others when it comes to presidential debates.

No. Facts are facts. This is a fact. We have seen some pretty odd arguments about why it is "wrong", and the fair minded reader is forced to conclude that it wasn't actually wrong. So then the fair minded reader might ask themselves what all the fuss is about, and on what other hysterical reaction might there be grains of truth that instigate it? And why truth creates such hysteria?

If you think Newt's could have made similar comments had about Israelis and not faced accusations of anti-semitism then your expectation of reality is different to mine.

Yes.

I remember Helen Thomas was fired when she said Israelis should get out and go back home to Europe

Yes. She was fired for supporting the expulsion of Jews from Israel. Deservedly so.

, well according to some GOP candidates the 'invented people' have 'invented claims' and certainly no right to live in the land that they have been living in for centuries or at least as long as America has existed.

Not all invented people are created equal.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

LOL The Balfour declaration is about a Jewish homeland that respects non-Jewish residents. It doesn't even specify about Muslims, let alone Arabs. For all the portion of the Declaration you posted could be talking about, he's referring to Greek Maronite priests. Are they Palestinians? He says "Palestinian" no where.

Christians or Muslim, Arabs or Druze, are all non-Jewish Communities of Palestine, as described in the Balfour Deceleration and therefore represent a political reality that the British explicitly mention. You could say that the British invented the Palestinians in 1917 with that memo.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Christians or Muslim, Arabs or Druze, are all non-Jewish Communities of Palestine, as described in the Balfour Deceleration and therefore represent a political reality that the British explicitly mention.

That is precisely false. None of those groups are "described" in the Balfour Declaration. If they were, you would paste it.

You could say that the British invented the Palestinians in 1917 with that memo.

As soon as you post the word "Palestinian" from Balfour, I can say that.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The Israeli identity is entirely invented. It does, however, have a clear origin point that has nothing to do with Arabs, and whose narrative of ethnic joining is pretty clear.

So, Gingrich would, if asked, acknowledge that "Israeli" is also invented? His claim wasn't intended to be specific to Palestinians?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

So, Gingrich would, if asked, acknowledge that "Israeli" is also invented? His claim wasn't intended to be specific to Palestinians?

He should, of course. Zionism is a deliberate and systematic effort to construct a nation, and a nationalist consciousness.

"Israeli" is of course a much older identity than "Palestinian".

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

He should, of course. Zionism is a deliberate and systematic effort to construct a nation, and a nationalist consciousness.

"Israeli" is of course a much older identity than "Palestinian".

Isn't that saying Roman is a much older identity than Italian?

But if these people are subject to an invention process, then surely these people had a right to object to this process, and by implication the partition plan.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Isn't that saying Roman is a much older identity than Italian?

It is. And a Roman is a more distinct and exact identity than an Italian. Just like Israeli and Palestinian, in fact. Good call.

But if these people are subject to an invention process, then surely these people had a right to object to this process, and by implication the partition plan.

People have little to say about the mass expulsions of Germans across Europe following WWII. Why pay attention to so much shrieking about a much smaller displacement of Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians?

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

It is. And a Roman is a more distinct and exact identity than an Italian. Just like Israeli and Palestinian, in fact. Good call.

I've met Italians they exist, but I don't think I've ever met a Roman. Reinventing them would be fun though, I'm imagining Westworld but in Latin.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

People have little to say about the mass expulsions of Germans across Europe following WWII. Why pay attention to so much shrieking about a much smaller displacement of Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians?

Why shouldn't they?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

I've met Italians they exist, but I don't think I've ever met a Roman. Reinventing them would be fun though, I'm imagining Westworld but in Latin.

Oh, there is no doubt that "Italian" is a more real national identity than "Palestinian", but in the European sense, its pretty weak. Garibaldi and the Risorgimento cobbled together a single political entity that did share a language, but had a number of differences not normally seen in states. We see this today, in the resentments between Italian North and South.

Romans, on the other hand, were the Masters of Latinum. They are the unified tribes of Roma, joined by language, culture, shared origin myth, and societal views. Even today, a "Roman" is a distinct identity (Like being a "real New Yorker, or a Parisian). Obviously there is no Roman "national identity", but in the sense of a truly felt, intrinsic value, to feel Roman is probably more real than to feel Italian. That probably isn't true of Paris or New York (Though with OWS, who knows).

Why shouldn't they?

Because they ignore the plights of greater suffering.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

For a start he said 'Palestinian did not become a common term until after 1977' despite it being mentioned twice in the rather short Balfour Deceleration some 60 years earlier, and both Jews and Arabs having passports and the like with British Palestine stamped on them.

Most of British Palestine is called Jordan today. If Palestinian national identity is based on the British mandate, don't Palestinians already have a state?

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

He also said the right of return was based on a false claim, goodness knows how he arrived at that position.

If you abandon your home, don't expect to be able to return 73 years after.

[Wonderment]

Ron Paul did refute Gingrich's idiocy, but he ruined the answer by meandering around and conceding some "technical" correctness to the original Islamophobe assertion.

That said, I do trust Ron Paul on Israel-Palestine. As with everything else related to US militarism, he is consistent and admirable.

Given that Ron Paul can't get elected, however, I would trust only Romney and Huntsman among Repubs. to continue Obama's (terrible but not insanely reckless) policies toward Israel.

The rest of this group --- Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann and Perry -- are all worse than Bush-Cheney and at least as dangerous to some semblance of peace and stability in the Middle East.

Of course, we have to factor in that Gingrich will say anything now to toss red meat to the base and out-Zionist Perry and Bachmann. In that sense, he's not so idiotic, but actually shrewd and calculating. Either way, it's disgusting.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Ron Paul did refute Gingrich's idiocy, but he ruined the answer by meandering around and conceding some "technical" correctness to the original Islamophobe assertion.

Demonstrate its idiocy, please.

[Wonderment]

Demonstrate its idiocy, please.

It is idiotic to negate another person's identity based on one's own political bigotry.

A Palestinian is a person whose heritage is the land of Palestine. They are the dispossessed inhabitants of the Palestinian diaspora, the refugees who have lived in camps for 60-odd years and the Israeli Arabs who live as second-class citizens within the "invented" land of Israel.

Of course, any idiot can assert that there's no such thing as a Jew or an Israeli or an American for various specious reasons. Example: the so-called United States is "really" Indian land taken by European interlopers; thus, "America" is an "invented people."

Such assertions are not "technically" correct or correct in any other way. They are just stupid, irrelevant, anachronistic and reprehensible.

In Gingrich's case his ulterior motives are transparent: he wants to stir up and exploit latent Islamophobia, appeal to voters with supernatural beliefs about the future of the region, and portray himself as an über-hawk (in contrast to "wimpy" Obama).

Furthermore, it is incredibly stupid as a message of hatred and hostility to Israel's neighbors. The Gingrich view is rightly interpreted in the Arab world as crackpot because everyone there knows what a Palestinian is.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

It is idiotic to negate another person's identity based on one's own political bigotry.

That isn't what happened. Newt didn't say that it "didn't exist", or that there are "no Palestinians". He said that it is new.

And it is. No where do you even deny this.

A Palestinian is a person whose heritage is the land of Palestine.

Palestine was properly understood in the Arab mind as part of a larger Arabic entity. And that was either Syria, or Syria and Lebanon, or Jordan and "Palestine" (IE: Transjordan), or Egypt.

Always.

They are the dispossessed inhabitants of the Palestinian diaspora, the refugees who have lived in camps for 60-odd years and the Israeli Arabs who live as second-class citizens within the "invented" land of Israel.

You yourself cite them as the "dispossessed inhabitants", meaning that you recognize both their newness and their invention. Indeed, the identity is obviously political.

You throw out that "invented" land of Israel. Israel isn't "invented", but the Israeli national identity is. It's about 70 years old, give or take. The Palestinians aren't that old, but maybe one day.

Of course, any idiot can assert that there's no such thing as a Jew or an Israeli or an American for various specious reasons. Example: the so-called United States is "really" Indian land taken by European interlopers; thus, "America" is an "invented people."

No, Americans are a unique cultural and social amalgamation that is distinct in the world. You could argue with some merit that, say, someone who considered himself an American in the 17th century would be part of an "invented people" since he would essentially be an Englishman, or at best British.

Instead the analogy you are actually making is if the Chinese were to occupy the Western United States, and I declared myself a member of the Nevadan people, and in need of my own Nevadan sovereign nation. The creation of my "Nevadan" identity would be a political affair to use against the Chinese, since I would obviously be an American. With a history of being an American. With no legitimate history of sovereignty.

Now, if we were to exchange my state name with the random longitudinal coordinates of Clark County, then we're even more accurately talking about Palestine. Because neither the Arab Caliphate, the Fatimids, or the Turks had a "Palestinian" provincial designation.

Such assertions are not "technically" correct or correct in any other way. They are just stupid, irrelevant, anachronistic and reprehensible.

It is correct, and it isn't stupid. It might be irrelevant.

In Gingrich's case his ulterior motives are transparent: he wants to stir up and exploit latent Islamophobia, appeal to voters with supernatural beliefs about the future of the region, and portray himself as an über-hawk (in contrast to "wimpy" Obama).

(Shrug) I enjoy historical debate in politics. I don't mind it at all.

Furthermore, it is incredibly stupid as a message of hatred and hostility to Israel's neighbors. The Gingrich view is rightly interpreted in the Arab world as crackpot because everyone there knows what a Palestinian is.

Look....you cannot possibly believe that in, lets say, 1949, the Jordanians or Egyptians or Syrians believed in "Palestinians". Be honest. If the Arabs had won in 1947, what would have happened to the land? Do you really, honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that some sovereign state called "Palestine" would have been created?

[Wonderment]

No, Americans are a unique cultural and social amalgamation that is distinct in the world.

So are Palestinians.

Look....you cannot possibly believe that in, lets say, 1949, the Jordanians or Egyptians or Syrians believed in "Palestinians". Be honest. If the Arabs had won in 1947, what would have happened to the land? Do you really, honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that some sovereign state called "Palestine" would have been created?

Who cares? In some pedantic literal sense all states are "invented," but I don't see Gingrich remarking that Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Colombia, not to mention Iran, Kuwait and Iraq are "invented." I don't see Gingrich calling Mexicans or Texans "invented peoples."

He singled out Palestinians for a reason: to delegitimize them.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

He singled out Palestinians for a reason: to delegitimize them.

Newt should be careful, as soon the may be reinvented and come out as Israeli. After all what is the difference between an Arab in Jaffa and one in Bethlehem?

In addition if Newt and Co. characterize Palestine as an artificial construction, then they can hardly blame the Arabs of 48 for rejecting it as such. Maybe Newt will inspire a rebirth of Pan Arabism that continues over from the Arab Spring.