Human rights for invented peoples: Tamimi vs. Gingrich

Israel/Palestine
on 5 Comments
Geronimo
Geronimo

In the second paragraph of the Palestine Center for Human Rights’ (PCHR’s) Dec. 10th press release, the few who saw it read the following words:

[This day] also marks the end of one of the worst years in the history of the Palestinian people since the Nakba. The civilian population of Palestine has been reduced to demanding the right to life, food, medical treatment, movement, and freedom of expression. Fundamental human rights are systematically denied, to the point where victims are reduced to simply demanding the right to exist.

In the national politics section of the news that same week, Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich reopened a controversy on his campaign trail by declaring the Palestinians an ‘invented’ people who are all “terrorists” anyway. The cheap, intrusive insertion of these lines into Gingrich’s grab for support succeeded at once in placing him in the spotlight where he has tried to open up an old wound. He knows the issues that will grab media attention and reignite controversy, especially one that has little to do with foreign affairs and a lot to do with scoring points for the Gingrich team.

Even Canada’s biggest talk radio show sought an “expert’s” comment though listeners hoping for an animated attack or defense of Gingrich’s words may have been caught off guard when the guest responded that Americans are an even more “invented” people than Palestinians. At least Palestinian Arabs lived on the same land for two millennia before being chased away, expelled, or slaughtered by the group of people then in the process of inventing themselves.

The talk show host might have had a more interesting segment by requesting the comments of a few Native Americans – a Cherokee, an Apache, or a Navajo ‘Indian,’ for example. What would a Native American have to say to Newt Gingrich had he claimed that the indigenous people of North America are “invented”? 

What would Geronimo have said had he been given the chance to comment on a statement made by a ‘patriotic’ white US general, that he (Geronimo) and his tribe were “invented” – and that the “American” Army was simply shooing them off the land God had intended white Europeans to settle? (Never mind that the Europeans had vastly bigger guns.) Geronimo could rightly have claimed these people were barking mad, or that they were engaged in a cynical and self-delusional attempt to invert reality in order to try to “justify” violently criminal and expansionist aims that would remain unfinished until the indigenous inhabitants of the land were eliminated.

(American public knowledge of Geronimo ought to be the subject of another paper: one that explains why it was so deeply offensive, to say nothing of ignorant, bigoted, and disgraceful for the US military to name its mission to kill Usama Bin Laden “Operation Geronimo.”)

Gingrich might have taken exception to the analogy of his comment about the Palestinians with the history of the Native Americans. He could have become indignant that his professed knowledge of history lacks any supporting evidence; but the damage has already been done. A more successful antidote to Gingrich’s latest vote-grabbing gig would have been for a fellow contender to turn Newt’s statement around and claim that the Jews are an “invented” people. The public could then have watched two pit-bull candidates rip each other’s shirts off as an audience stood by and applauded. Not only would we have had two numbskulls providing mud-slinging entertainment to a frightfully insular audience, those who actually make policy could claim another victory for keeping both the election and real, serious information away from the American people. Again. 

Sure enough, as Newt Gingrich was readying for another round of his boxing champ’s politics, the 63rd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came and went on December 10th without a peep from our mainstream media. In places where human rights violations really are a grave concern to people, people who plead daily for the international community to enforce international law and treaties and protect it from the abuses of illegitimate authority and military occupation, the luxury of indifference is absent.

The anniversary of this solemn occasion may have passed without notice for most of the educated public in the United States. Elsewhere, however, this was not necessarily the case. Most of major national and international human rights organizations around the world paid tribute to the day with at least some commemorative words. The somber realization that human rights are almost as much a privilege of first world elites today as they were in 1948 was not far in the background, however. For Palestinians 1948 is an anniversary that marks a significant decline in their rights and recognition as human beings.

This did not prevent the PCHR from marking the importance of December 10th, 1948. Indeed, the PCHR’s opening statement in its press release from Gaza City that day read:

Today, the world celebrates the anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In Paris 63 years ago, Member States of the United Nations General Assembly “pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

As staff members of the PCHR typed out these words in Gaza, a young man named Mustafa Tamimi from the small village of Nabi Saleh on the West Bank lay dying from his wounds. An Israeli soldier had shot Tamimi in the face with a tear gas canister at close range earlier that morning for taking part in a non-violent protest against Israel’s on-going theft of Palestinian land. At least half a dozen human rights had already been violated in the limited context of the shooting, and it would take another article to detail the full extent of the violations of international law, international humanitarian law, and universal human rights going on at the time by Israel against the Palestinians and financed by the United States.

I had to wonder how many others noted the irony of the incident: 63 years after the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Israel is a signatory; and 63 years after the creation of the state of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians – at least 750,000 of them expelled from their land and transformed into refugees – the grandchildren and great grandchildren of the Zionist armies were out in their IDF uniforms on the Jewish Sabbath threatening to shoot, tear-gas, or imprison the grandchildren and great grandchildren of those Palestinians who remained in Palestine and continue to resist. Neither occasion would make the evening news on Saturday night in the US because, for most Americans they were non-events: reality systematically and institutionally denied. 

Rereading the second paragraph of the PCHR’s press release (quoted at the beginning of this article) I could not help but reflect on the lament that the Palestinians have been reduced to “simply demanding the right to exist.” Nowhere would these words have more resonance than in the US where Newt Gingrich informed the news-watching public that Palestinians are an “invented” people. How easily it would be to fall into despair at this giant step backwards in the attempt to influence public perceptions.

Fortunately – or not – (as the case may be) reality doesn’t go away when you shut it out. We can deny it for only so long. Then, memories we hoped to bury resurface. The history we choose to deny returns to replay itself on the familiar stage of violence, suffering, and bloodshed. Neither nation states nor individuals can escape the realities they have created and actively participated in but refuse to acknowledge or confront. The sooner they do that, the less lethal the outcome for all involved.

About Jennifer Loewenstein

Jennifer Loewenstein is faculty associate of Middle East Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; LEAP project administrator (http://www.leapsummerprogram.org); freelance journalist; and founder of the Carol Chomsky Memorial Fund (www.chomskyfund.org) Currently on leave in Washington DC, Jennifer’s email is [email protected]

Other posts by .


Posted In:

5 Responses

  1. seafoid
    December 21, 2011, 2:35 pm

    Israel and the US are both settler colonial societies born through inhuman dispossession and the catastrophic use of violence and the pain and consequences hurtle down through the generations

    link to haaretz.com

    The thugs of the hills are only the icing on the cake. Most of the work is being done by thugs wearing kid gloves. Unlike the people who threw the stone at the deputy brigade commander, these are fan favorites in Israel. The flesh of our flesh. Officers and soldiers, military jurists, architects and contractors in the service of the army, Interior Ministry and National Insurance Institute clerks. The hands are their hands. The head is the head of the demos, the Israeli-Jewish people, who by the democratic process send governments to be the dictator over the Palestinians.
    The Israeli dictatorship is the art of the double standard (Palestinians cannot build on their agricultural land so as not to impair rural zoning, but the state can legalize a Jewish outpost on Palestinian agricultural land ). It is the champion of self-righteousness and arrogance (“the only democracy” ), and holds an advanced degree in hypocrisy (“ready to return to negotiations any time” ). Instead of going crazy with rage, the Palestinians know that these characteristics will hurt the Israelis themselves.

    That’s the summud that attorney Raja Shehadeh wrote about ages ago, when we still deluded ourselves that the Israeli-Jewish people can heal itself from the disease of lordship.

    Living in Reality -John Trudell

    Calling us red Indians
    We have been the colors
    On a chameleons back
    Changing with time
    Altering the larger pattern
    Surviving genocide
    Because we have to
    Living in reality
    We are targets of your unfairness
    With warriors for targets
    You create your own destruction
    This is how we bring you down
    Target by target you wound yourself
    Using your greed we watch
    Your spirit fade
    Living in reality
    We can endure your cages
    Your bullets your lies
    Your confusion
    We know you have
    Destroyed your peace
    Living in reality

    link to nybooks.com

    Finally, in January, the Justice Department published its first plausible estimates. In 2008, it now says, more than 216,600 people were sexually abused in prisons and jails and, in the case of at least 17,100 of them, in juvenile detention. Overall, that’s almost six hundred people a day—twenty-five an hour.

    link to guardian.co.uk

    Rape within the US military has become so widespread that it is estimated that a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.

  2. eljay
    December 21, 2011, 3:04 pm

    >> What would Geronimo have said had he been given the chance to comment on a statement made by a ‘patriotic’ white US general, that he (Geronimo) and his tribe were “invented” – and that the “American” Army was simply shooing them off the land God had intended white Europeans to settle?

    What could he have said that wouldn’t have been construed as “maximalist” or “destabilizing”, or as failing to “humanize ‘the Other'” or to “make ‘better wheels'”?

    How could he have argued against a “stimuli” from gawd? What words of his could have convinced good Christians that their “return” to lands to which they were entitled was unjust and immoral?

    Geronimo would simply have had to do what all of us must do today: Employ “personal spiritual discipline” to embrace the mass slaughter (“currently not necessary”) of Native Americans as an evil “required” so that “a good in the world” – a beacon of freedom, justice and democracy unto the nations! – could exist.

    • Hostage
      December 22, 2011, 7:13 am

      What would Geronimo have said had he been given the chance to comment on a statement made by a ‘patriotic’ white US general, that he (Geronimo) and his tribe were “invented” – and that the “American” Army was simply shooing them off the land God had intended white Europeans to settle?

      Oddly enough, Geronimo signed a peace treaty with Major-General Oliver Otis Howard. Geronimo wrote:

      When I went to Apache Pass (Fort Bowie) I found General Howard in command, and made a treaty with him. This treaty lasted until long after General Howard had left our country. He always kept his word with us and treated us as brothers. We never had so good a friend among the United States officers as General Howard. We could have lived forever at peace with him. If there is any pure, honest white man in the United States army, that man is General Howard. All the Indians respect him, and even to this day frequently talk of the happy times when General Howard was in command of our Post.

      For his part Howard readily admitted that it was the Mexican and White settlers who could not be made to live peacefully with their Apache neighbors. Howard wrote:

      “In 1889 I went to Mount Vernon Barracks, and the first man I saw as I got out of the train was Geronimo. He had a bundle of canes of different sorts of wood, which he had peeled and painted and was selling them one by one. When he caught sight of me he passed his canes to another Indian and ran to meet me. I could not understand his Apache, but he embraced me twice and called his Mexican name, “Geronimo,” “Geronimo,” many times so that I should be sure to know who he was.

      “But though Geronimo tried his best to be happy and contented, he was homesick for Arizona and begged me to speak to the President for him. “Indians sick here,” he said, “air bad and water bad.” I told him that there would be no peace in Arizona if the Indians went back to the Chiricahua Mountains, for the Great Father at Washington could not control the Mexicans and white people there and make them do what was right; and Geronimo tried to understand.”

      Geronimo was – wait for it – serving an indefinite term of military detention without trial as a “prisoner of war” in the functional equivalent of the Guantanamo of his day.

      He wrote a book, “Geronimo: His own story”, which contains a creation account that is very similar to the Jewish one. link to let.rug.nl

      The Apaches believed that God, Usen, had created them and their homeland:

      Still the four tribes (Bedonkohe, Chokonen, Chihenne, and Nedni), who were fast friends in the days of freedom, cling together as they decrease in number. Only the destruction of all our people would dissolve our bonds of friendship.

      We are vanishing from the earth, yet I cannot think we are useless or Usen would not have created us. He created all tribes of men and certainly had a righteous purpose in creating each.

      For each tribe of men Usen created He also made a home. In the land created for any particular tribe. He placed whatever would be best for the welfare of that tribe.

      When Usen created the Apaches He also created their homes in the West. He gave to them such grain, fruits, and game as they needed to eat. To restore their health when disease attacked them He made many different herbs to grow. He taught them where to find these herbs, and how to prepare them for medicine. He gave them a pleasant climate and all they needed for clothing and shelter was at hand.

      Thus it was in the beginning: the Apaches and their homes each created for the other by Usen himself. When they are taken from these homes they sicken and die. How long will it be until it is said, there are no Apaches?

  3. Avi_G.
    December 21, 2011, 3:16 pm

    Thank you, Jennifer Loewenstein.

  4. Citizen
    December 21, 2011, 6:34 pm

    Geronimo would have said that his tribe existed but there was no cohesive, homogeneous American “Indians.” Just various tribes of native people who lived here long before the palefaces came. The problem is akin to “The Arabs,” historically, is it not? No? How so?

Leave a Reply