The controversy over Newt Gingrich’s refusal to disavow his comments on Palestinian peoplehood gave me a sense of déjà vu. It seems we had a similar conversation in July when Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon released a video about the “disputed” nature of West Bank stewardship.
Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg objected to Ayalon’s plainly truthful video, and was upset enough about this truth-telling to crudely swear at the respected Israeli politician and accuse him of saying something that Ayalon never actually said. As Jonathan had put it: “To speak of the West Bank as disputed territory rather than ‘occupied Arab land’ is beyond the pale, because it hurts the feelings of the Palestinians and puts the two claims on a level playing field.”
Now, it must be noted that there is one significant difference between the two controversies. The reason Ayalon came away the clear winner of his exchange with Goldberg was not only because Ayalon’s language and demeanor remained dignified, but also because Goldberg’s suggestion—that the Jewish people should suppress their own history to please their enemies—is reprehensible.
The question in this case is about Palestinian history, not Jewish history. But this, too, should not be so controversial. As Aaron Goldstein notes over at the American Spectator, Gingrich simply endorsed the position of the PLO. The quote he chose to illustrate his point is one of many such pronouncements by Palestinian Arab leaders over the years. The fact that the Palestinians were initially—and admittedly—formed as a weapon of genocide against the Jewish state, of course, does not negate the fact that they are now considered here and everywhere to be a distinct people with the right to self-rule.
One other memory this brouhaha conjures is Rudy Giuliani’s statement during the 2007 primary process that “We don’t need to create another terrorist state”—though we should be clear that Gingrich was not opposing the creation of a Palestinian state, which Giuliani seemed to be doing. (Gingrich is on the record supporting the two-state solution. And it is telling that Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat’s reaction was to threaten violence.) But Giuliani was making the point that the peace process should culminate in peace, not simply the creation of a state that would do more harm than good to regional peace.
This should be common sense, but it’s not so common. The peace process, such as it is, must be focused on peace. Gingrich seemed to be making a similar point, which is that if we are determined to call it a “peace process” then we should behave as though we have some interest in actual peace. Allowing the Palestinians to control the narrative with dishonest revisionism designed to erode Jewish rights as a means to weaken and attempt to destroy the Jewish state cannot credibly be part of anything called a peace process.
UPDATE: Goldberg objected to my use of the word “admitted.” I took some of Goldberg’s statements during his argument with Ayalon as an implicit acknowledgement, but that is not the same thing as an open admission. He’s right about the difference, and I have edited the post to reflect that.
Good article, but a quibble: n nWhy is every distinct people entitled to self rule? Since when? n nWhy are a people whose identity consists of wearing Jewish scalps on their belts entitled to self rule?
The latest Palestinian {"Palestinian") drivel is that are directly related from … the Jebusites. That's right–those Zionist Israeli colonialists stole Jerusalem from them in the United Monarchy. Their kindergarten-school historiography is to gin up whatever pseudo-historical mish mash they need to pull out of their arses to assert that whenever Jews were in the Middle East, they were there earlier. That they claim Israel is a fraud, the Temple is a fraud, that Jews are rootless European Khazari apparently is not "racism" in today's up-is-down PC universe. The Palestinian mythos is at root a counter-mythos built on the systematic erasure of Jewish identity–a project of "de-Judaization" they picked up directly from their mentors in the Nazi German foreign office, to the applause of the nations. For strategic reasons the IDF and the current Zionist leadership prefer to suffer the PA foolishness rather than rollback the mortal flaws of the "peace process". n nAll this said, let's not forget that reducing Palestinian presence in the territory demarcated by the British Mandate of Palestine from 3000 BC to 638 AD (as part of the great Arab migration of conquest) is, in modern terms, not particularly damning. That Al Asqa Mosque, notwithstanding the shifting self-constructed identifies of those who worshipped there across religious, national, and notional boundries, is plenty old. Whether we call them Palestinians, Arabs, Greater Syrians, Hottentots, or Islamofascists, those currently claiming Palestinian identity are not exactly, as a national, trans-national, or local tribal community longitudinal historically, ab initio johnny-come-latelies, even if their district was a jerkwater dead end provincial nowheresville of the Ottomon Repubic. Demographically, Jewish and Arab populations have been fluidly interacting for centuries and we should not conflate the assertions that "Palestinian identity is a construct" with the overdrawn and overwrought assertion that "Palestinian people are invented", no they are just people and as real as they need to be.
I wonder if Mitt Romney knows about DFM Ayalon's Official State of Israel Youtube Channel where his excellent videos are posted. n nAt the Dec 10 2011 debate, Romney indicated that PM Netanyahu did not know what DFM Ayalon has been doing with three very effective videos so far; which was a close second as a surprise to me wondering when Mitt Romney ever dreamed of playing for the National Football League.
MainesMichael raises a key point: why must every "people" get a state? And why, especially, must the Palestinians, when the very essence of their peoplehood is to obliterate Jewish peoplehood? n nI think Seth and Jonathan have to address why, even though the Palestinians "exist" and have a recognizable identity, that identity is entitled to any legitimacy. To put it another way, there people who exist and have identities, but their sole identity is to harm or even seek to destroy other people (they are usually called murderers or sociopaths). Does the fact that such people exist and have identities mean those people's aspirations should be satisfied, when their sole aspiration is to harm or kill others? Please tell me how the Palestinian identity is anything but destruction of another people?
This a exactly the point. Just as personal freedoms we all enjoy are limited to the extent that those personal; freedoms tdo not extend to the right to damage someone else, so must national aspirations of a people not give them the right to destroy another. n nIn the case of the Palestinians, there is not cultural ethos other than the directive to destroy the Jews and their homeland. There is no way to satisfy them without allowing the destruction the the Jewish homeland. n nThe Palestinian culture was 'constructed', or 'invented' precisely to be this weapon of destruction. We know it, they (at least their leaders) know it, Obama knows it (or maybe he doesn't -maybe he believes their blood soaked rag of lies), and the Euro leaders, in their heart of hearts, know it. n nThe fact that the world goes along with this game shows exactly how precarious the status of the legitimacy of the Jews to live in their state, and even breathe oxygen, remains in this world.