Max notes that the identities of various nations have been “invented” relatively recently, including those of Americans, Italians, and others, and argues there is little point at this stage in disputing whether the Palestinians have forged a national identity, or whether they should have a state. But identities have consequences, and the Palestinian one bears on their claim to statehood, since identity and statehood are not synonymous (as the Kurds and Tibetans know).
The “Palestinians” have not been invented so much as renamed; not so much renamed as repurposed; not so much repurposed as redefined as “refugees” — under a definition that applies to no other people in the world. The number of all other refugees decreases each year, as they are resettled; the number of Palestinian “refugees” increases each year, as they are born, since they are the only people in the world entitled to inherit refugee status. Their refugee status is fundamental to their identity; it is the reason they reject offers of a state again and again and again: a two-state solution would require their acceptance of a Jewish state, but acceptance of such a state would require them to give up their identity.
The barrier to Palestinian statehood has never been the Jews or the State of Israel. The Jews offered Arabs a two-state solution in 1919; accepted the two-state solution of the Peel Commission in 1937; accepted the UN two-state solution in 1947. Israel offered the Palestinians a state in 2000; accepted the Clinton Parameters in 2000-01; and offered a state again at the end of 2008. The Palestinians rejected every offer, becoming the first people in history to reject multiple offers of a state and then set conditions for discussing another one.
The Palestinians continue to assert they will never recognize a Jewish state. They can’t – it is inconsistent with their identity, and the purpose for which the Palestinian identity was forged. From the Palestinian standpoint, the “peace process” is not about peace, or even about a state, but about reversing history: they seek a state on the 1967 lines to reverse the 1967 war, and a “right of return” to reverse the 1948 war — to return to the time before the wars the Arabs started and lost, and before there was a Jewish state. The real barrier to Palestinian statehood is the identity the Palestinians have invented.
Rick, n nGingrich gives the pro Israel community an opening to finally get some publicity for the truth about the Palestinians and even Commentary–you excepted Rick–jump all over him. A shame and a lost opportunity. We should be supporting Gingrich, who for the first time by a major American politician expressed a key truth about the Palestinians and all he gets is critique. Yes, you can quibble with the way he expressed it, but the key point is that Gingrich recognizes the Palestinians don't really have legitimacy. Tobin faulted him for being unpresidential in saying this, but so what? This is more than about the presidency–which the Republicans will likely lose anyway. This was an opportunity to start a dialogue to unpack the truth about the Palestinians, their tenuous or fabricated connection to the land and their 100% pure hate identity. But instead Commentary–Tobin, Mandel and Boot–are all critical. When a clear friend like Gingrich says something supportive, you should support it. Otherwise, you won't get that support in the future. Tobin, Mandel and Boot made a big mistake by nitpicking Gingrich. To your credit Rick, you have resisted that. Please try to convince your fellow writers at Commentary to change their tune and support and encourage the line of inquiry that Gingrich opened up. Chances like this don't come around that often! If they don't please do it yourself. The fact that the Pals are the interlopers, not the Jews, is key to defeating their claim to moral authority. If we defeat that , then the rest becomes easy. But right now, they have the moral authority. Gingrich's statement opens an opportunity to start exposing the truth. Run with it! n n
Bravo. Exactly right.
This is one of the best concise explanations of why there is no Palestinian state
UNESCO is of no use to culture and science but in a negative sense. Abolish it and then consider abolishing the whole UN. UNESCO's admission of the PA/PLO is another illustration of its lack of legitimacy.