Newt Gingrich is taking a lot of flack for telling a Jewish cable channel that the Palestinians are an “invented people.” Those comments were the subject of a lengthy segment of last night’s Republican presidential debate and will, no doubt, inspire angry commentary from the pro-Palestinian left as well as concern from others who will say that Gingrich’s attitude is unpresidential (as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum seemed to imply) and will not help the cause of peace.
This leaves us with three questions: Was Gingrich right? If so, what implications should this have for U.S. policy? And even if he was correct, was it wise for him to say it?
The answer to the first question is simple. Yes, of course, he is right.
There was no Palestinian Arab state or political entity under the Ottoman Empire or any previous ruler of this region. Indeed, prior to the 20th century, there is no evidence of there ever having been a consciousness on the part of the inhabitants of having a separate political identity that was distinct from the rest of the Arabs of the region.
When the Jews began to return to the country in large numbers over a century ago, Arabs and Ottomans, not Palestinians, met them. Indeed, may of those who now call themselves Palestinians are the descendants of Arab immigrants into the country from surrounding countries who came to find work that was available when the Jews began to rebuild the land. This was asserted in Joan Peters’ controversial book, From Time Immemorial, whose scholarship was roundly criticized when it was published by liberals who didn’t like her conclusions. The fact remains that Arab immigration into Palestine did take place.
It is also a fallacy to claim, as some do, that Zionism is as much a modern invention as Palestinian identity.
The only people to call themselves “Palestinians” prior to the creation of the state of Israel were the Jews who were the first, and up until that time, the only group to conceive of the land as being the home of a separate people or national identity. That was no accident since the land now called Israel or Palestine was sacred only to one people. For centuries, it was an Arab backwater, but it has been the object of prayers for two millennia for the Jews who not only never ceased to hope for the restoration of their sovereignty but also, as is rarely mentioned, never entirely left its soil. Zionism was merely a new name for an ancient though still living people’s belief about their homeland and their destiny.
By contrast, Palestinian nationalism is, as Gingrich rightly said, a 20th century invention. It arose and flourished purely as a reaction to Zionism, a factor that has fatally complicated the quest for peace as Palestinian identity seems to be predicated more on a desire to extinguish the Jewish state and to delegitimize the Jewish presence than it is on the re-creation of an Arab political culture that is specific to this locality.
Even 50 years ago, there was little notion of a separate Palestinian political identity. After all, from 1949 to 1967 Jordan ruled the West Bank and half of Jerusalem and Egypt controlled Gaza. During those 19 years, there was no international clamor to create a Palestinian state in those territories. It would only be after Israel took control over the territories during the Six-Day War that the absence of a Palestinian state was deemed intolerable.
That said, it must be conceded that even if the Palestinians did invent themselves in the last 100 years, it is pointless to deny they do exist now. Millions consider themselves to be part of a distinct Palestinian people with a common history and destiny. The United States and Israel both understand that their desire for self-rule must be accommodated so long as it does not infringe on the rights and security of Israel. A two-state solution that would allow a state of Palestine to exist alongside Israel is now believed by most Israelis to be a commonsensical idea even if it would involve painful territorial compromises.
The catch is that the Palestinians seem unable to accept the idea of the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. And that is where their “invented” history comes in. Since the Palestinians only arrived on the world stage as a result of their revulsion at the notion of Jewish sovereignty over any part of the country, it is difficult, if not impossible for them to come to terms with a peace that would imply Israel’s permanence.
The role of the United States in this mess is not so much to point out the myths about Palestinian history, though myths they are, as to impress upon the Arabs and their supporters that they must abandon their rejection of Zionism.
As for Gingrich’s judgment in saying what he did, it must be said it was refreshing to hear a major American political figure state the truth about the history of the Palestinians and to say the myths they have created have been in service to one goal only: the destruction of Israel. Doing so will not fuel anti-American terrorism as much as it will disabuse the Palestinians of the idea they have long cherished that sooner or later, the United States will abandon Israel.
Nevertheless, it must also be pointed out that if he is elected president, Gingrich will have to deal with the Palestinians and the Arab world. Being upfront about America’s closeness with Israel and that there will be an end to Obama’s practice of treating the Jewish state and those that desire its destruction as being morally equivalent is fine. But it remains to be seen whether Gingrich has the ability to be more than an accurate student of the history of the Middle East. It is fair to say as president, he will have to be more guarded in his statements and even fairer to express skepticism about his ability to do so.
The Palestinians may have a national consciousness, but letu2019s explore that consciousness a bit:r nr nu2018Palestiniansu2019 have no identity other than as the instrument of Israelu2019s destruction. No history, no ancient kings, no ancient texts, songs, or dances. Their modern heroes are famous for murder. They name schools and squares after people who kidnap kids, take them to caves, and mash their heads to jelly, who break into homes and cut the necks of sleeping children and their parents, who blow up Passover Seders killing old men, women, and children, who shoot pregnant women and kids point blank. The most famous Palestinian is a murderous deviant who died of God knows what, now buried in a concrete filled hole in Ramallah.r nr nWhat history they have is manufactured, a usurpation, no, outright theft, of Jewish history, aided and abetted by Koranic interpretations. Kings David and Solomon, and even Jesus, were not Jews, but Palestinians, in their view; Jerusalem is not an ancient Jewish city, but an Islamic city the Jews are trying to usurpate with their phony Jewish history, to illegally u2018Judaizeu2019.r nr nThey are a weaponized people. Whether it be terrorism or delegitimization, they are the most effective weapon the Islamic world has ever fielded against Israel.r nr nTo recognize these facts for them would be to recognize the bankruptcy of their entire existence as a people. It would require them, further , to repudiate major Islamic tenets. To give up the hatred that sustains them and gives their lives value beyond the mean existence the Arab world has forced upon them.r nr nJust because they have a national consciousness does not lead to the need for a state. What about Kurds, Tibetans, and a hundred others more deserving. What about them? r nr nThe focus on the palestinians is a manifestation of the worldu2019s agenda vis a vis the Jewish state.r nr nThe way the Israeli -u2019Palestinianu2019 conflict is rigged, itu2019s a zero sum game.r nr nAny legitimacy the u2018Palestiniansu2019 gain comes at Israelu2019s expense.r nr nThe logic is simple u2013 if Israel concedes something to the u2018Palestinianu2019s, that is proof ofu2019 u2018Palestinianu2019 legitimacy. If the u2018Palestiniansu2019 are legitimate, then Israel canu2019t be. Unfair, but there it is. When the world doesnu2019t like yo to begin with, thatu2019s how it goes.r nr nThe greatest bit of Judo ever seen was the Arab worldu2019s turning the Arab Israeli conflict into the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Over night , David became Goliath, and the Arab Goliath disappeared, replaced with a u2018Palestinianu2019 David.
Of course Americans were invented. They were a melting pot of peoples from a wide variety of cultures. And that is what they have been taught.
You are muddling terms. You can't have a national identity without a nation. That is difference between being an ethnic group, among other things. n nYou are also dodging the core element of the Gingrich claim: That the Palestinians have invented themselves as a distinct people with a long, rich, (verifiable) heritage going back centuries – a heritage that specifically lays claim to territory – territory occupied by Israelis. A heritage invented specially to counter Jewish historical claims to the very same territory. And the Palestinians use these claims to justify terrorism/war against the current Israeli state. n nThey are not saying, "We got together in the 1920s and decided to create our own national identity and now that we have cemented it among our masses, give us a nation."
The Palestinians may have a national consciousness, but let’s explore that consciousness a bit: n n‘Palestinians’ have no identity other than as the instrument of Israel’s destruction. No history, no ancient kings, no ancient texts, songs, or dances. Their modern heroes are famous for murder. They name schools and squares after people who kidnap kids, take them to caves, and mash their heads to jelly, who break into homes and cut the necks of sleeping children and their parents, who blow up Passover Seders killing old men, women, and children, who shoot pregnant women and kids point blank. The most famous Palestinian is a murderous deviant who died of God knows what, now buried in a concrete filled hole in Ramallah. n nWhat history they have is manufactured, a usurpation, no, outright theft, of Jewish history, aided and abetted by Koranic interpretations. Kings David and Solomon, and even Jesus, were not Jews, but Palestinians, in their view; Jerusalem is not an ancient Jewish city, but an Islamic city the Jews are trying to usurpate with their phony Jewish history, to illegally ‘Judaize’. n nThey are a weaponized people. Whether it be terrorism or delegitimization, they are the most effective weapon the Islamic world has ever fielded against Israel. n nTo recognize these facts for them would be to recognize the bankruptcy of their entire existence as a people. It would require them, further , to repudiate major Islamic tenets. To give up the hatred that sustains them and gives their lives value beyond the mean existence the Arab world has forced upon them. n nJust because they have a national consciousness does not lead to the need for a state. What about Kurds, Tibetans, and a hundred others more deserving. What about them? n nThe focus on the palestinians is a manifestation of the world’s agenda vis a vis the Jewish state. n nThe way the Israeli -’Palestinian’ conflict is rigged, it’s a zero sum game. n nAny legitimacy the ‘Palestinians’ gain comes at Israel’s expense. n nThe logic is simple – if Israel concedes something to the ‘Palestinian’s, that is proof of’ ‘Palestinian’ legitimacy. If the ‘Palestinians’ are legitimate, then Israel can’t be. Unfair, but there it is. When the world doesn’t like yo to begin with, that’s how it goes. n nThe greatest bit of Judo ever seen was the Arab world’s turning the Arab Israeli conflict into the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Over night , David became Goliath, and the Arab Goliath disappeared, replaced with a ‘Palestinian’ David.
Zuheir Mohsen, a leader in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in an inverview, March 1977, with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, said the following: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism." "For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
This quote is a bit misleading. Mohsen was a Ba'athist, not exactly mainstream in the PLO. n nDifferent Palestinian factions expressed different degrees of Pan-Arabism, Palestinian specific nationalism (or peoplehood), pan-Islamism and communist revolutionism at different times. Fatah never took a position as extreme as Mohsen's, although they did used to be pretty clear that the Palestinian Arab people were a part of the larger Arab nation, and destroying Israel was a vanguard action in the process towards pan-Arabism. n nPan-Arabism, though, is more or less dead. There are still some leftist factions that are pretty straightforward about national liberation movements being synthetic and just a temporary tool in the progress toward international socialism. n nBut much more common these days is the sort of Pan-Islamism that prompted Steve Clemons, "realist" of the Atlantic Magazine and the New American Foundation, to ask Khaled Meshal whether he was a "Palestinian patriot or a Muslim patriot". n n
Gingrich's statement and his follow up during the Iowa Debate was doubly impressive because he created a link between his statement of the convenient creation of "palestinians" with Reagan's brilliant but even more controversial denunciation of the Soviets as an "evil empire." Gingrich also stressed the propaganda war that is raging over the existence and rights of the Jewish state. Romney, by contrast, came off as somewhat timid— call Netanyahu and ask his permission about making the statement. Not very presidential.
"Gingrich’s attitude is unpresidential (as Mitt Romneyu200b and Rick Santorumu200b seemed to imply) and will not help the cause of peace". Quite the opposite. Entirely the opposite. Gingrich has been courageous and armed with the truth. If Gingrich continues on this path, there may be a chance for an honest and decent peace. The path that apparently Romney and Santorum prefer is the one that Obama has taken. It has led us deeper into this stalemate and encouraged the Arabs to not only defy Israel but also the US. Until the Arabs face and admit the truth, there can be no real peace.
Newt Gingrich's comments are constructive insofar as they work to dispel the growing belief among Arabs of all nationalities that the creation of a Palestinian state is such a foregone conclusion that good faith negotiations are no longer necessary. They seem to be convinced that circumstances have progressed to the point that Palestinian behavior no longer has a bearing on events, and they can sit back and allow the international community to do all the heavy lifting. n nThe Palestinians are not the only "invented" nationality in the Middle East, but the more relevant inquiry is into what they've done to justify the creation of what would undoubtedly be yet another Arab dictatorship on Israel's border? If Newt has called such justification into question, he's done a great service.
Gingrich’s casting all Palestinians as terrorists makes me think of Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda. Weren’t Jews smeared by the Nazis with their very broad, ugly brush, before being consigned to the death camps? This blatent pandering by this doughboy Messiah (his facial features also invite comparisons to Sloboban Milosovich) to Evangelicals will not serve Israel well if he becomes president. The evangelicals wax orgasmic, of course, about the prospect of Israel going up in flames, as it will hasten their entry into the pearly gates, as it were. And Gingrich, with his incediary language, his pseudo-historical bullshit, and his meglomania, would only be too happy to light a fire under the proverbial powder keg.
No Gingrich doesn't cast all Palestinians as terrorists. This is fictive. The Palestinian national movement, on the other hand, did sit at Hitler's side during World War II and did form a Waffen SS to murder Jews and Christians in Yugoslavia. The Palestinian national movement does spew out anti-semitic bile against Jews day in and day out, calling Jews scorpions, poison and on and on. The Evangelical supporters of Israel and Christian Zionists have repeatedly distanced themselves from pre-millenialism and separated their support of Israel from any eschatological beliefs concerning Jesus' second coming. Meanwhile supporters of the Palestinian cause, in the Middle East and in the United States "wax orgasmic" in dire and apocalyptic predictions of the days in which perfidious Zionism is purged from the world. It is high time for Israel to be admitted to the front door of alliance with America, it is high time for this administration to cease to treat Jews building apartments for other Jews as the bete noir of the Middle East. And high time for liberal Jews to rethink finding a reason to trash every party, Jew or gentile, who challenge this President in not treating Israel like unwanted shmutz. There is no reason to believe that Newt would turn from an entrepreneurial repackager of motivational transformation blarney (buy the CD, buy the book, buy the DVD) into an incendiary lighting fires under any powder kegs–rather it is the current President's public hanging of Israel out to dy and shameless pandering to (imaginatively reconstituted) Islamic sensibilities that has repeatedly invited Arab and Islamic miscalculations.
The area had been predominantly arab for the 18 centuries prior to zionism. Whatever you want to call it, whatever they called themselves it doesn't really matter. n nSome of the arabs came later but some jews don't at all trace their lineage to the area either. This is nitpicking. The issue has always been the jews coming in large numbers quickly and eventually displacing the arabs and what to do about that, if anything. n n nAlso, I think Romney was right about Gingrich's remarks. Wether you agree with them or not the president isn't supposed to be a pundit. Newt has mellowed but he's still Newt and he isn't cut out for the job.
What? The Arabs arrived in the region from the Gulf littoral 638 CE. You can do the math. Plus, Jews never completely abandoned Eretz Yisroel. Resettlement in modern times began roughly in the 18th century. And no, the issue has always been the Arabs refusal to exist Jews living in their midst even after the Jews had bought the property they were living on and what the Jews should do to prevent repeated waves of anti-Jewish incitement, pogrom, and attempted murder. n nNobody denies that the Palestinians are descendants of Arabs who came into the area anywheres from the 7th century to the 21st. That doesn't justify their wars of extermination against Jewish property, Jewish history, Jewish lives, the Jewish present, and the Jewish past.
Actually, the Palestinians are also almost certainly the descendants of the Greeks and the Jews who lived in Palestine in the 7th century CE when the Arabs conquered it.
Let's not get carried away and put the cart before the horse. Look at yourself in the mirror, your loved ones at rest, our your children at birth. It is debatable how much of our worth, our existential value, our ontological preciousness is derived from our holy texts and sacred scripture, our abstract stabs at logical and theological self-definitions, separating the we from the them, and how much derived from just being here. n n"To recognize these facts for them would be to recognize the bankruptcy of their entire existence as a people." n nNo, if all their history and their historical accounts, their truths and their many idiotic lies disappeared in a puff of smoke, their existence, as Palestinian people would remain not one iota affected.
I must disagree. They would still wake up, go to work, feed their families, and so on, but the life of the mind would change, and they would no longer feel justified in celebrating and committing murder as the centerpiece of their culture, and may find their anger turned more towards their arab brethren who have exploited this particular subset of arabs so cruelly. n nIt would be a big change.
For sure. I myself agree with you one hundred percent. But the idea being promulgated is that their mythos not only reveals an intellectual and spiritual hollowness in the Palestinian soul impeding healthy relations with their neighbors but somehow reveals them to be less than human, to be luftmenschen, spectral; that they are such creatures of self-invention that absent this cement they would literally disappear in the harsh light of their own bankruptcy. n n
The "Palestinians" are largely an invention of other Arab states, who cynically use the Palestinians as a pawn in their war against Israel. The State of Israel, and America, have helped the Palestinian people a million times more than the Arab states, who deliberately restrict the Palestinians to refugee camps. Look at the size of Jordan and Syria, and ask yourself why these large states have no room for their Palestinian brothers? The solution to the problem is for Syria, Jordan, and Egypt to absorb these Arabs.
But if Palestinian identity is a construct, the Palestinians themselves are not. They are not invented. They are not Invisible Men. They are of women born like everyone else and the authors of their own inventions. Many wish to return to their claimed ancestral homes, and they do not consent to be involuntarily sent from their current homes in the West Bank and Gaza for other Arab nations or be absorbed into other political entities. At the end of the day, polemically countering their preposterous anti-Jewish fibs serves its purpose, but there they be.
don't count on it– nGLENDOWER. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. nHOTSPUR. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?
The problem in a nutshell is not that Syria or Lebanon will not make permanent citizens of the refugee descendants but that the PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY has stated that it will not accept as citizens in a newly established Palestinian state "Palestinians" who come from families who left Israel in 1947-48. These must be resettled not in Palestine but … Israel. The issue imo is not that other Arab countries will not absorb Palestinians but that the Palestinian leadership culture is still set on absorbing Israel.
People can form around a contract. Ours is called the Constitution. The Palestinians' have two: The Charter of the PLO and The Charter of Hamas. Both call for the complete destruction of Israel. For good measure Hamas' calls for the genocide of the Jews.
Dear All: n nPlease re-read MainesMichael. His point–a very deep one–is not really about history, demographics or "who came first". It is about the intrinsic nature of Palestinian identity, and whether that identity is at all compatible with any version of Zionism. MainesMichael is saying that Palestinian identity is inherently antithetical to Zionism, opposed to Zionism and at war with Zionism. You can't advance "Palestinian" aspirations without necessarily harming Zionist aspirations. It is, as he so cogently says, a zero-sum game. I believe that everyone who wishes to dispute this must disprove his central point that "Palestinian" identity is anything other than a weapon against Zionism. To put it another way: Is there anything to being a Palestinian–in a political sense–other than a passionate desire to obliterate Israel?
No. His post goes a step beyond recognizing that Palestinian culture is, if you will, diseased by casting itself as anti-Zioinism, as a liquidationist variety of supercessionism–and that the Palestinians are enemies, toxic enemies, dangerous enemies as far as their corporate threat–into dehumanizing: n n"To recognize these facts for them would be to recognize the bankruptcy of their entire existence as a people." n nNot, so. They are not entirely bankrupt as a people. Some of their history is accurate on a local level. They are human beings with human achievements. Even now, with their zero-sum, Nazi delusions they are not simply the sum of these delusions, a people whose "entire existence" is now one big "bankruptcy". n nYou go down that road and the thought will continually pop into your head that since they have set themselves up in a zero-sum erasure of Jewish identity, history, and lives, and they themselves are a one big bankruptcy, a shadow-existence themselves, that one way to deal with the threat posed by their toxic culture, a good way, the best way, the only way is pre-emptive annihilation. n nEven now there remain other options, as testified to by Israeli policy. n nThe fact remains the rest of the Arab world is not going to absorb these folks in their millions. They have to be negotiated with, contained (including with informal contacts and formal arrangements), conquered, or expelled and/or annihilated. Harping on the "bankruptcy of their existence" is a motivator for pushing your response into the red. And, as proved already in Bosnia, that is not a pain-free choice.
There are no pain free choices in the mid east. Israel has avoided going 'into the red' to an admirable degree, indeed with a strength (or is it weakness) no other nation would have shown in the face of genocidal provocations and violence. n nThe 'Palestinian identity' must be modified from one ENTIRELY based on the negation of the Jewish homeland to one that is based on . . . what? n nI don't know what it can be based on. They have created nothing other than a literature and practice of murder. Genocide, infanticide, human sacrifice, you name it. All the demons of the ancient mid east are alive and at play in Palestinian culture. n nWhat is to be done with them? n nAs a people they are irredeemable. Not as individual human beings, of course – but they have to be removed and rehabilitated out of their toxic cultural environment.
I think one problem is we gravitate towards the "negative greatest hits" of their anti-Zionist and anti-semitic cultural product–and for good reason–to ignore it would be folly. Still, I wouldn't have confidence that their culture en toto is just a blank wasteland of sewage. There is hope that something can be coaxed from their civic conversations down the road other than this continual suicide cult ghost dance malarky. n nBut in any event, they can't be removed from their culture physically–it isn't a spatial environment they can be extracted from–and they and their cultural baggage cannot easily be pushed as a package 20 kilometers east and southwards. n nI have no answer. I personally think that a reimposition of the Israeli Military Occupation on the Palestinian Authority and the proscription of Palrestinian political and social orgainizations actively disseminating hatred might not turn into a disaster but the Israeli leadership is convinced "been there done that" and they don't think it would work. n nWe keep circling back to conflict management and containment. A great vexation.
I think it is telling that you (and I) cannot find anything in their culture other than genocide and death worship. n nThey seem a distillation of the worst elements of Arab and Muslim civilization, as these are the elements one would want to have in a people whose 'nationality' was formulated as a weapon. n nIt is a vexation. If they overplay their hand, they may find themselves on the receiving end of what they deserve.
I agree largely with Kathy Kattenberg above. Newt's "invented" remark is, at best, a half thruth that winds up being pointlessly provocative (although it allows Newt to pretend he is tough). n nSyrian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese, Saudi, Kuwaiti are all "invented" identities in that they exist only because of borders drawn by the victorious World War I Western Allies in the Arab territories that had been part of the Ottomon Empire. In the view of several generations of Arab nationalist leaders, these Western colonial borders are the source of all of the region's problems, including the later imposition of a partitioned Palestine. They are doubtless wrong about this but whose interests does it serve to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the states that were, in fact, created as a result of British and French military occupation? If these borders are not as inviolable as any other, where was the legitimacy of blocking Saddam from siezing Kuwait? n nThere are a great many truths and half truths in international affairs that are entirely or largely pointless for statesmen to dwell on: Koreans are one people; the Kurds have more in common with each other than with Arabs, Turks or Persians; Congo is an agglomeration of unrelatec tribes;Germans populated East Prussia for a thousand years. It is a very long list. n n
generally, the way nations are born is there's a war and the winner gets the land. this happened to Israel 4,5, 6 times maybe? they won every war of aggression started against it by however many Arab countries… n n…yet Israel, of all countries in the world, does not get to keep territory it won fair and square in a war it didn't start. why? let's think real hard. what could be different about Israel? n n
I agree with besht2003 – the claim is that they are the Jebusites or the Cannanites who were driven out; therefore, they were there first and entitled to all the land. In my opinion, that is why Gingrich’s comment is important. The entire point of the peace process is recognition of the Jewish state, peace, and security in exchange for land. As long as Israel is delegitimize, it is giving the PLO a blank check to do whatever they want.
This is like the night in which all cows are black. In your eagerness to debunk the idea of national identity, you're ignoring a host of significant differences between these different nations and their various claims to sovereignty. n nFirst you say that Gingrich's statement is false, but then you say that there was no Jewish state either, which suggests that Gingrich is right but simply hypocritical. Which is it? If Gingrich is factually incorrect, then where is the evidence. But then, according to you, no state can have any more claim to legitimacy than any other state; even if I decide that the property that my house sits on is a sovereign nation, I presume you would recognize my sovereignty. Presumably, according to you, there is no acceptable evidence for national sovereignty, since it's all just rhetoric.
But the Palestinians precisely DISAGREE with you and claim and invented nationally coherent P-a-l-e-s-t-i-n-i-a-n identity stretching back contiguously and continuously from the Jebusites in the 3rd century BCE, even as they engage in historical denial not only of the Holocaust (Abbas' Ph.D) but the First and Second Commonwealths, the Second Temple and on and on. And there certainy was a Jewish state and political entity in Eretz Yisroel from approximately 1100 BCE to 110 CE–a troublesome reality again and again disputed by the Palestinian counter-mythos of a historic Palestinian homeland.
Kathy, you are conflating ethnic identity with political boundaries. Take the Kurds. They live in four different countries and have none of their own. But they have their own language, their own customs, dress, etc; they are easily identifiable as a people and have been in their homeland for thousands of years. If they agitate for a state of Kurdistan, will you call them invented too? The Jews are also identifiable by language, religion, customs, also have lived in their homeland for thousands of years; the difference is they have lived everywhere else too. The Jews are not an invented people either. But there was no such thing as a Palestinian Arab people distinguishable by language or customs from other Arabs until after 1948, really since the 1970s, nor did the Arabs of Palestine think of themselves as a separate people from the Arabs of Syria, Jordan, etc until then. Palestinianism was invented as political movement to fight Zionism. Maine's Michael has it exactly right: the Palestinians are a weaponized people.