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

[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.

[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.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

So are Palestinians.

No. And it is telling that you ignored my example. You know that there is no distinct "Nye County" identity, or Nevadan one. You are more than aware that these are Americans, have always conceived of themselves as such, and do not aspire to sovereignty. The intervening case would be the Chinese, in that example, where the "Nevadan people" would be a construct built to reject the Chinese, and make territorial demands at their expense. This is precisely the case with the Palestinians. As far as "identity" goes, the Palestinians make the Basques look like Germans.

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."

No. States are the evolved borders of population movements, usually. We're not talking about states, we're talking about peoples. The blend of American immigration and cultural inputs, melded over centuries, creates a unique national identity. The Persians are thousands of years old, with only a moderate Arabic-Turkish infusion. Mexico is a unique combination of Meso-American and Spanish cultural identity, and similarly blended by blood. These aren't "invented" identities. They are the consequence of time and blood and struggle....think of it like geology.

The Palestinians are Arabs in a way so as to more resemble colonists. The Palestinians have historically considered themselves Syrians more than anything else. Indeed, I'll refer you to the Palestinian representatives who spoke at the Paris Peace Conference (Precursor to Versailles):

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.

Now this is in 1919, when the borders of the globe are being drawn and self-governance is all the rage, while the Empire that Palestine sits in had been ripped apart and occupied. Meaning, everything was on the table.

But that is how the Palestinians PREFERRED to end up in 1919. As part of the Syrian mandate. Before Israeli independence, the Palestinians even objected to the idea of "Palestine", as a Zionist creation.

“There is no such country [as Palestine]! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries, part of Syria.

That is to the Peel Commission.

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the general assembly in May 1947 that said “‘Palestine’ was part of the province of Syria” and that, “politically, the Arabs of Israel were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity.”

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/comment-...967-19.2553641

Now, you may consider these parties illegitimate representatives to dictate current land distribution. But you cannot just dismiss them when it comes to how they represent the very notion of Palestinian identity. It doesn't cross their minds.

And the why is obvious. They don't MIND being Syrians. They think of themselves as Syrians. The only reason to have a non-Syrian Palestine (Or Trans-Jordan) is as a Zionist enterprise, because that would be the ONLY reason to draw the border there.

I mean, think about it Wonderment. What logical reason would there be to divorce Palestine from Syria or Lebanon or Jordan? There is no historical reason for a separate state.

[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?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

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.

Canada was also invented. So were a myriad of African countries. Indeed, most countries today at one point weren't countries, until they were.

But I get the sense that Gingrich wasn't claiming that Palestinians were like every other people in this regard.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Now, you may consider these parties illegitimate representatives to dictate current land distribution. But you cannot just dismiss them when it comes to how they represent the very notion of Palestinian identity. It doesn't cross their minds.

And the why is obvious. They don't MIND being Syrians. They think of themselves as Syrians. The only reason to have a non-Syrian Palestine (Or Trans-Jordan) is as a Zionist enterprise, because that would be the ONLY reason to draw the border there.

I mean, think about it Wonderment. What logical reason would there be to divorce Palestine from Syria or Lebanon or Jordan? There is no historical reason for a separate state.

There is no "historical" reason for a separate Zionist state either. Did European and other representatives at the Versailles Peace Conference have the historical right to bestow the land of British Mandate Palestine on Zionists? Did Lord Balfour have such a right?

The fact that Palestinian representatives in 1919 saw themselves as part of a greater Arab nation is hardly a reason to deny the descendents of those who fled or were driven from their homes in the year 1948 the right to statehood in the year 2011.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by apple

I don't recall Hitler saying that he wanted to kill every Jew in the world, either.*

* And I'm sure I'll be called a holocaust denier for this comment by people who can't read.

Asalaam Alaykum apple

Well I'm glad to hear it and I don't think you are a holocaust denier. So the Iranian president doesn't want to kill every jew as well since he can't be WORSE than Hitler ???

That was obviously not a threat. He was speaking metaphorically.

Imagine that, a leader of a country speaking metaphorically about destroying another country. I hope to be able to use this insight in other comments as well.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Canada was also invented. So were a myriad of African countries. Indeed, most countries today at one point weren't countries, until they were.

That is irrelevant. Gingrich wasn't talking about "countries". We're talking about "people", as in a nationalist consciousness.

But I get the sense that Gingrich wasn't claiming that Palestinians were like every other people in this regard.

The things you're referring to are unlike the 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 sugarkang

I'm open to the possibility that Ahmadinejad was just engaging in political rhetoric. My point was that even the friendliest interpretation carries with it an intent to see Israel gone, regardless of the means used to achieve that purpose. Unless you meant that Ahmadinejad wants a peaceful one-state, integrated Palestine?

Intent is an important concept, as opposed to a passive prediction or wish, and yes Ahmadinejad could easily welcome a peaceful one-state solution. Putting the issue of whether this new one state would, by numbers alone, be Muslim rather than Jewish, he has said before he will support the will of the Palestinian people.

Don't forget Ahmadinejad is publicly a democratic, maybe illegitimately elected to head an undemocratic system, but a democrat nonetheless and of a nation that contains a sizable Jewish population. You are unlikely to hear any such statements in the US affirming this or repeating his support for a public referendum (except maybe when Paul gets screen time) but you will hear the 'map mantra' repeated again and again.

These debates once again remind me just how radical and dangerous the GOP are to the rest of the world.

[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.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Canada was also invented. So were a myriad of African countries. Indeed, most countries today at one point weren't countries, until they were.

But I get the sense that Gingrich wasn't claiming that Palestinians were like every other people in this regard.

Exactly. This is what he said: "I believe that the commitments that were made at the time – remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”

Thus, the point (maybe a dog whistle, as he backed off of the full implications of this later, but maybe too explicit to be described as such) is that there should be no Palestinian state, that the Palestinians ought to just leave and go to some other Arab country. Maybe, in the alternative, we can let Jordan have some of the occupied territories, since Israel doesn't really want them. That's the position he's suggesting.

The "historical" argument is nonsense because it is irrelevant -- as Joe Lieberman said in objecting, there are Palestinians there now.

The point about a people being one or not, whether national claims are valid, tends to be raised -- makes sense to be raised -- in connection with demands that a particular area is entitled to its own state, as opposed to being subsumed in another state. Here, however, Gingrich clearly is not claiming the Palestinians in the occupied territories should be part of Israel or complaining that the territory that comprised Palestine or the potential Palestinian state should have been given to some other Arab country or that a Pan-Arabia should have been created. He's saying that Palestinians have no rights, that they should get out of the way.

[Wonderment]

You, like Newt, are missing the whole point. Newt, however, did it for crass political purposes. You are trying to gloss that with irrelevant historical associations.

Here is the supremely simple issue: Palestinians are the people of what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.* That is where there land is, and that is the land they identify with. It doesn't matter one whit if they previously called themselves Syrians, Pan-Arabs, Jordanians, Natives, Muslims, Christians Holy Landers or Martians. The issue is their rights under Israeli goverance and UN refugees, victims of war and the Israeli expulsion (Nakba).

*I have no problem including Jews in this definition of Palestinians. They too have roots, culture, geography and legitimacy. They just don't have exclusive rights, and they need to redress their fellow Palestinians' grievances by granting them full citizenship in the new "invented" nation of Israel.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Intent is an important concept, as opposed to a passive prediction or wish, and yes Ahmadinejad could easily welcome a peaceful one-state solution.

Okay, but do you think that's the most plausible interpretation?

[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.

[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 Florian

There is no "historical" reason for a separate Zionist state either.

Of course there is. The lesson of history is that Europeans could not be trusted not to abuse their Jews, after pogrom, Inquisition, and Holocaust.

The historical record underlined the moral imperative.

The borders, however, are clearly drawn along a concept of "biblical" Israel. But that underlines my point. There were no "Palestinians" because there was no natural "Palestine". It is a floating concept only made solid by the British mandate. It is properly a part of Syria or Jordan. Why would there be a division of the Jordan river, for instance? Rivers are not borders in the Middle East the way they are in Europe. They are prized resources.

Did European and other representatives at the Versailles Peace Conference have the historical right to bestow the land of British Mandate Palestine on Zionists? Did Lord Balfour have such a right?

Yes. In defeating the Central Powers, the Peace Conference had the right to settle the disposition of their former subjects. They did their best in erring towards autonomy. That the Palestinians received little consideration was mostly due to:

1. The fact they desired none; they wanted to be subjects of the Hashemite King Faisal I in Syria.

2. The fact that Palestine was very sparsely populated. Probably the least populated out of any of the former Ottoman lands to become Mandates outside of the Hijaz

The fact that Palestinian representatives in 1919 saw themselves as part of a greater Arab nation is hardly a reason to deny the descendents of those who fled or were driven from their homes in the year 1948 the right to statehood in the year 2011.

That is a different issue. Right now we're debating why people are suggesting the truth is crazy, or "stupid" or wrong. We're having a "War is Peace" discussion.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

You, like Newt, are missing the whole point. Newt, however, did it for crass political purposes. You are trying to gloss that with irrelevant historical associations.

Irrelevant? The debate is whether it is true. You initially said it wasn't, and moreover, that it was stupid and wicked. Now you are saying that it is irrelevant.

Here is the supremely simple issue: Palestinians are the people of what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.* That is where there land is, and that is the land they identify with. It doesn't matter one whit if they previously called themselves Syrians, Pan-Arabs, Jordanians, Natives, Muslims, Christians Holy Landers or Martians. The issue is their rights under Israeli goverance and UN refugees, victims of war and the Israeli expulsion (Nakba).

That is a different matter. I am objecting to the casual appeal of authority leftists seem to take for granted in politics. People who suggest Newt was in error, in that flippant way where not only is error casually ascribed, it is suggested as a sign of mental defect. But it isn't an error. It is factually correct.

The reason why it is relevant that Palestinians are an invented national identity is a different matter. It means that we should discuss the responsibilities Syria and Jordan have to these people as their countrymen, and how they have cruelly used them for politics by locking them in camps.

But I suspect that doesn't bother you as much as Israelis, seeking security.

*I have no problem including Jews in this definition of Palestinians. They too have roots, culture, geography and legitimacy. They just don't have exclusive rights, and they need to redress their fellow Palestinians' grievances by granting them full citizenship in the new "invented" nation of Israel.

Absolutely not. That should never happen.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The reason why it is relevant that Palestinians are an invented national identity is a different matter. It means that we should discuss the responsibilities Syria and Jordan have to these people as their countrymen, and how they have cruelly used them for politics by locking them in camps.

Is that how Palestinians feel broadly or is it a mixed bag? After a generation goes by, many of the sons don't feel the obligations of their fathers. Young Germans don't feel responsible for the holocaust; American whites don't feel the need to pay reparations. Of course, I don't know the details.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

It means that we should discuss the responsibilities Syria and Jordan have to these people as their countrymen, and how they have cruelly used them for politics by locking them in camps.

Why is Syria and Jordan responsible? Surely you mean Israel and the UN too? The occupation is no picnic either, and refugees in Syria seem to be treated just like refugees in most other places in the world.

[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.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Why is Syria and Jordan responsible? Surely you mean Israel and the UN too? The occupation is no picnic either, and refugees in Syria seem to be treated just like refugees in most other places in the world.

Except that as we've demonstrated, those refugees are Syrians.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Except that as we've demonstrated, those refugees are Syrians.

But they still have doors keys to homes in Jaffa and Hebron not Damascus. By your logic they don't even have a claim to Ramallah.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Exactly. This is what he said: "I believe that the commitments that were made at the time – remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”

Thus, the point (maybe a dog whistle, as he backed off of the full implications of this later, but maybe too explicit to be described as such) is that there should be no Palestinian state, that the Palestinians ought to just leave and go to some other Arab country. Maybe, in the alternative, we can let Jordan have some of the occupied territories, since Israel doesn't really want them. That's the position he's suggesting.

You want to argue with that? Ok. I disagree with your argument, but that is different than suggesting Gingrich is not factually correct.

The problem then is that if he is factually correct, what is wrong with the comment? If it is true, then logic dictates the next step is to discuss the legitimacy of Palestinian claims. Now, here it is fine to dissent. But it is not legitimate to dismiss what is true because it is inconvenient for this second part.

After all, if we were to return to pre-1967 borders, we are restoring Jordanian and Egyptian and Syrian land, are we not?

The "historical" argument is nonsense because it is irrelevant -- as Joe Lieberman said in objecting, there are Palestinians there now.

Fine, it is irrelevant. I agree that we must deal with the de facto reality of the newly created Palestinian identity.

But it isn't nonsense for being untrue, which was the implication in the media and at the beginning of this thread. And the factual basis of the claim is what supposedly has the Palestinians hopping mad about it. Without rebuttal including evidence, I might add.

The point about a people being one or not, whether national claims are valid, tends to be raised -- makes sense to be raised -- in connection with demands that a particular area is entitled to its own state, as opposed to being subsumed in another state.

Sure.

Here, however, Gingrich clearly is not claiming the Palestinians in the occupied territories should be part of Israel or complaining that the territory that comprised Palestine or the potential Palestinian state should have been given to some other Arab country or that a Pan-Arabia should have been created. He's saying that Palestinians have no rights, that they should get out of the way.

Lets argue over this then. The reason that Gaza and the West Bank are political basket cases is that Palestine as sovereign entity is ahistorical. That needs to be considered going forward. The two hundred square miles around my house have no history of self-governance either. I assure you that once the United Nations recognizes our right to statehood, it'll be a big mess.

But the left shouldn't be so arrogant as to deride factual historical matters in so casual a way.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

But they still have doors keys to homes in Jaffa and Hebron not Damascus. By your logic they don't even have a claim to Ramallah.

If Israel created refugee camps where Yemenese Jews were forced to live in until Yemen recognized their right of return, who would you blame? 50 years on, Yemen or Israel?

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The reason why it is relevant that Palestinians are an invented national identity is a different matter. It means that we should discuss the responsibilities Syria and Jordan have to these people as their countrymen, and how they have cruelly used them for politics by locking them in camps.

Excellent! AT LAST, we have cut through all of Gingrich's bullshit to the real agenda: the West Bank should be absorbed by Jordan and Egypt can have Gaza. The "invented people" (who "are terrorists" anyway) are not the problem of the Jewish State.

In a way, I actually support part of that proposition. If Primary-Gingrich and the Settler leaders have their way, we'll toss the untenable and increasingly preposterous idea of a two-state solution on the garbage heap of failed ideas. I totally welcome the disappearance of two-state talk, so Newt's provocations may actually bring us closer to my goals (although I fear that he will provoke violence against Americans and Israelis instead).

I realize that on paper Newt supports a two-state solution, which only compounds how seriously lacking in integrity his primary-season rhetoric is.

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Asalaam Alaykum apple

Is there no other way for you to express your admiration for a historic pedophile (peace be upon him)?

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Well I'm glad to hear it and I don't think you are a holocaust denier. So the Iranian president doesn't want to kill every jew as well since he can't be WORSE than Hitler ???

Who said that?

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Imagine that, a leader of a country speaking metaphorically about destroying another country. I hope to be able to use this insight in other comments as well.

'Bury you' isn't even about destroying, it's about defeating the US economy. On the other hand, wiping a country off the map is pretty unambiguous.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Excellent! AT LAST, we have cut through all of Gingrich's bullshit to the real agenda: the West Bank should be absorbed by Jordan and Egypt can have Gaza. The "invented people" (who "are terrorists" anyway) are not the problem of the Jewish State.

You're still quoting the "invented people" thing as if it weren't so. You just said that the truth of it is "irrelevant", but seemed to acknowledge that it is true. Confusing.

Secondly, I don't speak for Mr. Gingrich. But for myself, I would prefer that the Jordanians took back the West Bank and the Egyptians took Gaza. I don't think that is very likely, however, because of the outrageous lack of gratitude the Palestinians demonstrated when they attempted to overthrow the rightful Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan. So I don't think Jordan would take the West Bank, or Egypt would take Gaza. Israel is stuck with them.

My point that you were quoting, however, is about the obligations Syria and Jordan have to Palestinian refugees, who were culturally and historically Syrians. Why would you disagree with that? Wouldn't you be outraged at Israel if Israel insisted that Jews expelled from the Middle Eastern Arab states remained in camps until Iraq, or Syria acknowledged a right of return?

In a way, I actually support part of that proposition. If Primary-Gingrich and the Settler leaders have their way, we'll toss the untenable and increasingly preposterous idea of a two-state solution on the garbage heap of failed ideas.

A "single state" solution is the worst possible outcome. That is why no one in a position of power advocates for it.

[Wonderment]

You're still quoting the "invented people" thing as if it weren't so. You just said that the truth of it is "irrelevant", but seemed to acknowledge that it is true. Confusing.

I have said it can be construed as true in some pedantic self-serving sense, the same way you might say, "There's no such things as Americans. The real Americans are the Cheyenne, the Sioux and the Cherokee." Whatever. We've been around and around on this for way too many posts now.

Secondly, I don't speak for Mr. Gingrich. But for myself, I would prefer that the Jordanians took back the West Bank and the Egyptians took Gaza. I don't think that is very likely, however, because of the outrageous lack of gratitude the Palestinians demonstrated when they attempted to overthrow the rightful Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan. So I don't think Jordan would take the West Bank, or Egypt would take Gaza. Israel is stuck with them.

Right. We disagree about the reasons, but the fact remains that Jordan or Egypt will never annex Palestine.

My point that you were quoting, however, is about the obligations Syria and Jordan have to Palestinian refugees, who were culturally and historically Syrians. Why would you disagree with that? Wouldn't you be outraged at Israel if Israel insisted that Jews expelled from the Middle Eastern Arab states remained in camps until Iraq, or Syria acknowledged a right of return?

Irrelevant also. The refugees will not be absorbed anywhere until their UN status as refugees is resolved. That has been apparent for decades.

A "single state" solution is the worst possible outcome. That is why no one in a position of power advocates for it.

Your first statement is your opinion. The second statement is a non sequitur.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

That is irrelevant. Gingrich wasn't talking about "countries". We're talking about "people", as in a nationalist consciousness.

In what sense was Canada, in, say, 1900, a "people, as in a nationalist consciousness"?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

In what sense was Canada, in, say, 1900, a "people, as in a nationalist consciousness"?

Good question. It probably wasn't in 1900. It took the confluence of American and British influence with the oddity of Quebec to make Canadians a distinct people with a nationalist consciousness. The point is that it probably had one as of 1930.

Of course, I don't think Canada is a good yardstick for defining a "people". Australians are probably a better example of a distinct people in the Commonwealth, unique from the British-abroad patina that seemed to characterize 19th century Canada.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Here is the supremely simple issue: Palestinians are the people of what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.* That is where there land is, and that is the land they identify with. It doesn't matter one whit if they previously called themselves Syrians, Pan-Arabs, Jordanians, Natives, Muslims, Christians Holy Landers or Martians.

You can't go back to Constantinople.


http://youtu.be/dsRuurcTTSk

[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.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Good question. It probably wasn't in 1900. It took the confluence of American and British influence with the oddity of Quebec to make Canadians a distinct people with a nationalist consciousness. The point is that it probably had one as of 1930.

Sure, as I said. It wasn't a people until it was. That's also true of Australia. You just have to go back further.

All people are human inventions at base.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Sure, as I said. It wasn't a people until it was. That's also true of Australia. You just have to go back further.

All people are human inventions at base.

No, you are just selecting the most nebulous examples in that they're colonists. British colonists at that. If you examine Quebec, the Quebecoise have a much longer "identity" than Canadians. Theirs can legitimately be measured from ten years after the French-Indian wars. So too with Latin America. The second the Bourbons lose their grip on Spain in the Napoleonic age, the distinct identity of the colonials asserts itself. There aren't inventions. These are the consequence of culture and blood.

They're "not a people until they are" is a conceit of a stable British Empire, where the awareness of identity is a product of some piece of paper granting more autonomy.

But Palestinians aren't colonists. They're the spear tip of a population movement. And as such, they considered themselves to be "part of the spear". In other words, Syria.

What makes their newly invented identity significant enough for discussion is that it has a political purpose. It is a tool meant to pry land away from Israel. This is problematic for Palestinian supporters because it undermines the moral narrative. This is why people have spent time denying the obvious.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

No, you are just selecting the most nebulous examples in that they're colonists. British colonists at that. If you examine Quebec, the Quebecoise have a much longer "identity" than Canadians. Theirs can legitimately be measured from ten years after the French-Indian wars.

Yes, sure. An earlier invention. Just like England was a very early invention, and was created if you go back far enough.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

So too with Latin America.

Um, no. Latin America isn't a country. Ask a Guatemalan trying to sneak into Mexico about the unitary identity of Latin America.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

If Israel created refugee camps where Yemenese Jews were forced to live in until Yemen recognized their right of return, who would you blame? 50 years on, Yemen or Israel?

Yemen would be the one violating international law right? If so you have your answer.

There are refugee crisis that old in various places, yet we don't blame the host country in those cases, nor the victims, which Israel supporters are prone to do (ie the weren't real refugees, but if just in case they were, they aren't now).

The irony is though we expect the Palestinians to take the burden, and in some cases the blame, for the crimes of Europe and the refugees it produced.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I have said it can be construed as true in some pedantic self-serving sense, the same way you might say, "There's no such things as Americans. The real Americans are the Cheyenne, the Sioux and the Cherokee." Whatever. We've been around and around on this for way too many posts now.

No, because there was no "American identity" held by Indians. You're right, we have gone over this too many times now, and I think that this might be my fault because I'm not explaining my position in stark enough terms.

So let us put it this way. The Germans evolved an identity. The Americans evolved an identity. The French evolved an identity.

The Palestinian identity is invented.

That is pretty clear, no? Consider most other people's gestation to be the product of eons of evolution and struggle, and the Palestinians to be grown in a biological lab.

Right. We disagree about the reasons, but the fact remains that Jordan or Egypt will never annex Palestine.

Don't know how we could disagree about the reasons. Hussein refused to meet with Arafat without being armed after Black September.

Irrelevant also. The refugees will not be absorbed anywhere until their UN status as refugees is resolved. That has been apparent for decades.

Your moral facade is ripped from you. "Irrelevant" because you know how you would react to the hypothetical. You would denounce Israel to the rafters of this bulletin board if they held Sephardic Jews of Arab nationality in refugee camps the way the Arabs do the Palestinians.

Any club will do?