Trending Topics:

Gingrich comment that Palestinians are an ‘invented people’ enters primary debate

on 100 Comments

Things are heating up. Gingrich’s incendiary comment perpetuating the myth Palestinians are an ‘invented people’ has made its way into the GOP primary debate and it appears this outrageous inflammatory lie could forge a path into mainstream American discourse.

Last night after the televised debate in Iowa, David Weigel reporting in Slate referenced this myth as a “knowledge-bomb.”

“The Israelis are getting rocketed every day,” snorted Gingrich. “We’re not making life more difficult. The Obama administration is making life more difficult.” Plus, he was right on the facts. “Palestinian did not become a common term until after 1977.” That’s the sort of knowledge-bomb that Republicans dream of dropping on Obama—they feel like this is right, but here’s a candidate who can say so.

Rest assured some neocons and their supporters will continue to clench onto this argument like a dog with a cherished bone.  This morning William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor at Cornell Law School writes on his blog:

Palestinian national identity as it currently is recognized was a reaction to the creation of Israel and most prominently the 1967 war when Israel captured territory controlled by Egypt and Jordan. Newt Gingrich is under fire for stating this truth.


The importance of Gingrich’s comment was that it skewered a false historical narrative which dominates the international debate and is used for the demonization of Israel and its chief supporter, the United States.

Newt was absolutely correct to say enough already with the falsehood. If it upset the Palestinians, well too bad. It’s about time a prominent political figure in the United States didn’t just voice support for Israel but did so in a historically accurate manner which addressed the false Palestinian narrative of perpetual victimization.

Let’s take a look at at where the framing of the fight between Gingrich and Romney breaks down (PDF)

SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: 22:07:42:00 But can– can I just say one last thing? Because I didn’t speak for the people of Israel. I spoke as a historian who’s looked at the world stage for a very long time. I’ve known Bibi since 1984. I feel quite confident an amazing number of Israelis found it nice to have an American tell the truth about the war they are in the middle of and the casualties they’re taking and the people who surround them who say, “You do not have the right to exist, and we want to destroy you.”
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: 22:08:04:00 I– I’ve known– I’ve– (APPLAUSE) I’ve also known Bibi Netanyahu for a long time. We worked together at– at Boston Consulting Group. And the last thing Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is not just a person who’s an historian, but somebody who is also running for president of the United States, stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in– in his neighborhood.
DIANE SAWYER: 22:08:29:00 Congresswoman–
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: 22:08:29:00 And I’m president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability. And make sure that in a setting like this, anything I say that can affect a place with– with rockets going in, with people dying, I don’t do anything that would harm that– that process. 22:08:47:00 And therefore, before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say, “Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do? Let’s work together, because we’re partners.” I’m not a bomb thrower, rhetorically or literally.

It appears ‘the debate’, is not even being framed by these two candidates as an argument over whether this ‘invented people’ myth is fact or fiction! Ron Paul dealt with it, neither Gingrich or Romney even go there.  All of a sudden it now becomes about whether it should remain unspoken or not (as if this myth/lie has already been determined as a truth for these candidates.)

And here’s Romney again doubling down with his insane foreign policy positioning of abdicating American foreign policy towards Israel . . . to Israel.  Does he really see that as a winning concept for most Americans. My head is spinning.

We’re in for a fight over Palestinian identity. Are the Democrats going to role over for the lobby on this one? That remains to be seen, but this is a fight we will win.

(Hat tip Alex Kane)

Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .

Posted In:

100 Responses

  1. Richard Witty on December 11, 2011, 3:31 pm

    On Meet the Press, Ted Koppel described that quote as an embarrassment, that it caused serious question to Gingrich’s persona as “historian”.

    • annie on December 11, 2011, 3:33 pm

      thanks richard, helpful. do you happen to have a link?

      • Hostage on December 12, 2011, 5:44 am

        do you happen to have a link?
        The discussion starts @ 37:51. Koppel says “You know if you go back 100 years, there was no Saudi Arabia, there was no Iraq, there was no Jordan. I think as an historian, Speaker Gingrich needs to be a little more accurate.”

        Koppel goes on to say that Gingrich was taking a more Pro-Israeli approach than any recent Israeli Prime Minister and said that there are few leaders in Israel today who would align themselves publicly with the position Gingrich is taking.

        Of course the truth is that the Knesset is full of slobbering idiots that steadily regurgitate this line of crap on a daily basis.

      • annie on December 12, 2011, 9:23 pm

        thanks hostage, will watch now.

    • Mooser on December 11, 2011, 4:11 pm

      Oddly enough, Richard, I was just going through your comments archive, making notes, sifting, catgorising and organising.
      Now, I have no interest in when you stopped beating your wife (as the saying goes), but when did you decide the Palestinians were not an “invented people”?
      Or maybe I just haven’t read far enough yet?

      • clenchner on December 12, 2011, 8:54 am

        I know! You’re just being insulting, as usual. Mixing truth and lies about someone else’s opinions is sort of what you do.

      • Chaos4700 on December 12, 2011, 9:38 am

        Oh whatever. Time and time again, people like you and Witty and eee and hophmi all march in lockstep here. I don’t think I ever remember hearing you disagree with any of that shit.

      • Mooser on December 12, 2011, 12:00 pm

        “I know! You’re just being insulting, as usual. Mixing truth and lies about someone else’s opinions is sort of what you do.”

        Oh, you haven’t seen the worst of it, OldClenchner! Just wait til I start putting quote marks around things I feel are implied in a comment, or just making up quotes entirely.

      • Chaos4700 on December 12, 2011, 7:10 pm

        You can’t make up quotes entirely, Mooser! That’s Witty’s job. ;)

      • Mooser on December 13, 2011, 11:37 pm

        “You can’t make up quotes entirely, Mooser! That’s Witty’s job. ;)”

        Anything he can do, I can do better! And when I finish cataloguing, categorizing and compiling Witty’s comment archive, I won’t need to. I’ll just “click” and have all the quotes I need.

  2. tombishop on December 11, 2011, 3:45 pm

    The Palestinians are the descendents of people who have lived on this land for centuries. What they have not had is a Western type nation state with a national government, etc.

    What has been “invented” is the state of Israel. This is a Western state that has been imposed on the indigenous population of the area and used for sixty years to advance the imperialist aims of the the United States and Europe in the Middle East.

    The modern Palestinian identity has been forged in opposition to this colonialism which has been imposed on them.

    • seafoid on December 11, 2011, 4:31 pm

      The whole region – Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon was carved up by European colonialists. It should really be one country.

      • W.Jones on December 11, 2011, 8:43 pm

        Maybe. But maybe it should be left up to them. After all, I think that Syrians(the Assyrians) are significantly different than Lebanese(the Phoenicians) and have been separate groups since before colonial times, even if they have the same base language (Arabic).

    • MHughes976 on December 11, 2011, 4:49 pm

      The people of a province within an empire, to whose rule they effectively consent, do have a national government in the sense of a government running their affairs. If that government collapses or withdraws under outside pressure the individuals concerned do not cease to exist and do not lose all common interest. Anyone who tries to take the place over would have an obligation to act in the common interest of all his (her, their) new subjects, not pretend that there was no such thing.

      • piotr on December 11, 2011, 8:11 pm

        According to one website I stumbled upon, the region between Nile and Euphrates should be Eretz Israel. Using divine guidance would be best, or most objective. Jews exists, Arabs exists but God approved cheating Ishmael so there, America — well, America seems to be a heretical conjecture. After all, all animals that survived the Flood were released on the slopes of Ararat that at that time was higher than Himalayas (or Flood water obeyed a little different laws of physics than today, so all stories of a separate continent with its own animal life should be firmly rejected. And so the existence of Palestinians.

        So we can heartily agree with Newt on his main thesis, but we can quibble on details. First, he claims that people who do not exists surround and threaten Israel. Ontologically, geographically, geometrically, any way you look at it you have a problem. The second issue is that he has mention America, and on what authority does he claim that this is but a figment of his imagination? Judges? Numbers? Ezekiel? Luke?

    • libra on December 11, 2011, 5:04 pm

      tom, I agree completely with your sentiments regarding the Palestinians. Israel has sadly been imposed on them and continues to impose itself on them. But I’m aware of no historical evidence or indeed current evidence for your rationale “…to advance the imperialist aims of the the United States and Europe in the Middle East.”

      I would say Israel was established to advance the cause of Zionism and successive Western foreign policies have been influenced, if not hijacked, to support this objective. No matter what they would like us to believe, I don’t see Israel as providing any benefit to the West. Far from being a productive and useful “colony” it is a colossal and unaffordable drain.

      That said, neoconservatives conflate Western and Israeli interests. But they are a key part of the mechanism by which Israel exerts strong influence on Western foreign policy in the Middle East. We see this most clearly now with respect to Iran.

      • tombishop on December 11, 2011, 7:34 pm

        “I would say Israel was established to advance the cause of Zionism and successive Western foreign policies have been influenced, if not hijacked, to support this objective. ”

        libra, I think this gives far too much power to the Zionist establishment. I think the Western powers established Israel in 1948 because it was strategically useful as a pretext for interventions in the societies of the region particularly to gain access to the natural resources of the area such as oil. “Defense of Israel” has been used as the excuse for overthrow of governments and wars against Arab and Persian states for sixty years. Israel would not have been established if the Western powers did not want it no matter what the Zionists said.

        I do not mean to minimize, however, the role that Zionism as an ideology has played in galvanizing support for Israel. In Western societies, the Zionists skillfully used the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitic pogroms to promote their ideology. These legitimate grievances became a pretext for using the Jewish people for the interests of the Western powers.

        The combination of Jewish Zionism and Christian Zionism has created a lethal combination which has poisoned American politics. Religious superstition is now the guiding force in U.S. foreign affairs. It is this audience that Newt Gingrich and neocon extremists in the Republican and Democratic Party are playing too.

      • dahoit on December 12, 2011, 9:32 am

        Nah,the Zionists play our clowns like a fiddle,and the contention we are using them as a base in the area is ludicrous.Not that the way things are being formulated by the Zionists to force closer cooperation in the future precludes that from happening as we completely screw the pooch by idiotic statements by clowns such as this whore Gingrich.
        Doubling down on idiocy,the new American way.
        Hey,the Iron Dome was 1 for 6 the other day.The iron colander dome neh?

      • Citizen on December 12, 2011, 9:45 am

        This is true; we now see in these GOP candidates (except Ron Paul of course) the fusion of US foreign policy with increasingly pure religious war, “Judeo-Christian” values against the forces of Islam. Can we get more feudal (yeah, I know, our monetary-economic system is increasingly feudal too, a feudalism for post-agrarian society)? Bachmann lays out the fusion case honestly. She’s a true believer, not just a cunning political animal.

        Here, the New Yorker weighs in on Newt’s “invented people” theory:

        Note the less-than-subtle “fair and balanced view” of this New Yorker piece, which paints over hasbara regarding actual facts of the history of the region and its change in demography over the years, and origin of the settlers:

  3. homingpigeon on December 11, 2011, 3:47 pm

    The Democrats will compete to be more extreme on this issue than the Republicans. But what is disheartening is that so many good people will support the perceived lesser of two evils, thus colluding with and enabling the process.

  4. Tristan on December 11, 2011, 3:57 pm

    That professor is a funny man. He says something that amounts to: Newt is right. There are no Palestinians. And if the Palestinians don’t like that sentiment, too bad!

    If the WHO, “Professor”?

    Otherwise, I’ve been amazed by the reaction of neocons over the Gingrich remark. On a fox news round table this morning, they all agreed it was a stupid remark. Also, Jennifer F. Rubin of all people has an op in the WaPo right now ripping into Gingrich.

    I suppose belief in the existence of Palestinians is the dividing line between settlers and their neocon assistants.

    • annie on December 11, 2011, 4:07 pm

      Jennifer F. Rubin of all people has an op in the WaPo right now ripping into Gingrich.


      reader mark wauck just sent me Newt Gingrich and Dave Weigel Will Bomb Knowledge Back to the Stone Age. like i mentioned this is a fight we will win.

      hands down we will win it. bring it on!

    • American on December 11, 2011, 4:46 pm

      Hummm…..may be the zios are getting scared of their and Israel’s true nature being revealed thru Newt.
      Newt’s an ugly, smart-ass guy who makes vulgar smart-ass statements…the uber zios and christian zio may love he’s in their corner– but I think non fanatics are replused by Newt’s flippant attitude and white trash character in general. The smarter zios might not want themselves represented to the public by someone like that.
      Maybe they will dock his check this week for his overdoingit on the Palestines.

      • Tristan on December 11, 2011, 7:25 pm

        This election is strange. Candidates used to pander to the Israeli Establishment. Now they’re going straight over their heads and pandering to the settlers. Judging by the chastisement of Newt and the sidelining of Bach and Perry, the approach doesn’t seem to be working.

  5. Shmuel on December 11, 2011, 4:00 pm

    The real debate seems to be over who’s known Bibi longer. I suggest the GOP simply ask Netanyahu and nominate its presidential candidate on the basis of his answer.

    • Tristan on December 11, 2011, 7:32 pm

      Romney’s line about getting permission from Nets to speak is well and truly cringe inducing.

    • Chaos4700 on December 12, 2011, 9:39 am

      The GOP might as well run Netanyahu as their candidate.

  6. Cliff on December 11, 2011, 4:17 pm

    Comments from Prof. Jacobson’s blog,

    High time somebody told those blackmailing bastards in the ME what for. When they hear something they don’t like they always threaten terror. I loved Newt’s response about how can we tell the difference. We need a POTUS who will tell the Arabs that of we get struck by terrorism, even the homegrown type, we’ll bomb you back into the Stone Age cuz its your ideology that’s fostering it.

    Winner winner chicken dinner!

    I cannot wait’till the drooling, Palestinian appeasing elitists at the nyt and walk try and blast newt over this. It will just make me like him more.

    The rest is equally nauseating.

    I think we’ve arrived at an all time low for the American political theater.

  7. seafoid on December 11, 2011, 4:28 pm

    Ron Paul gave a very sensible answer to Gingrich’s provocation

    at 06.15

    Let the Israelis take care of themselves and sort it out with the neighbours. The US is flat broke

    • CloakAndDagger on December 11, 2011, 8:28 pm

      He also says “technically, Newt is correct in that there was no Palestinian nation during the Ottoman Empire, but neither was Israel”.

      We need this man to be president. I urge you all to do what you can to get him elected. I have already predicted that he wil surprise everyone with an upset in Iowa in January.

      Here are two things that you can do immediately:

      1. Register as a Blue Republican – at least for the primaries – and at least get him nominated. You don’t have to vote for him in the general elections, although I hope you do. Just having him debate Obama as the Republican nominee will shine light on the things that the MSM tries to keep hidden, exposing the MIC and the Israeli lobby.

      2. There is a money bomb on December 16. In 2007, his supporters raised $6 million in one day on that date. That is phenomenal since all his funds come from grass-roots. He does not get funded by corporations or the lobby or the MIC. His campaign is trying to beat that record and gain a strong momentum going into Iowa and then NH. Please help them do that.

      A win in Iowa and a strong second in NH would really upset the MSM cart. I am not so confident about South Carolina or Florida, but the momentum from the first two states could be a game-changer.

      A Ron-Paul presidency would be amazing for all the principles we discuss here every day. As in 2008, I have maxed out on my donations to his campaign, so all I can do is urge others to contribute.

      Please help.

      • dahoit on December 12, 2011, 9:35 am

        Ditto;changed my registration this week in NY.

      • Chaos4700 on December 12, 2011, 7:12 pm

        You know, when eee mocked me about what I was going to do, I donated to Ron Paul’s campaign.

        Maybe I’ll do that again.

      • CloakAndDagger on December 12, 2011, 9:07 pm

        That’s a great idea! Thank you!

        Every time we get mad at the Israel lobby, we should donate to Ron Paul’s campaign instead of merely ranting and feeling frustrated and impotent. This way we can contribute to bring about change that will actually help defang the power of the lobby.

    • Chaos4700 on December 12, 2011, 9:40 am

      Now that is change you can believe in.

  8. NorthOfFortyNine on December 11, 2011, 4:35 pm


    Somebody should send this map (of Palestine as depicted in Roman times) to Newt Romney for Christmas. The map was made in 1821.

    Apart from that, I agree with MJ Rosenberg that all “peoples” are invented, including Palestinians. Nationalism is a top-down phenomenon.

    • annie on December 12, 2011, 9:56 am

      all “peoples” are invented

      nobody invented me


      • Hostage on December 12, 2011, 2:23 pm

        all “peoples” are invented

        According to modern theories of human migration, the OBM racial and ethnic classifications that are used for census and other purposes are redundant, nonsensical, and invented: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White.

      • NorthOfFortyNine on December 12, 2011, 4:04 pm

        nobody invented me

        “Peoples”, not persons! ;)

  9. on December 11, 2011, 4:40 pm

    Good comment from Gilad Atzmon.
    “Newt Gingrich is no doubt a revolutionary political thinker.
    He has managed to offer an adequate solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. In an interview with Steven Weiss of The Jewish Channel, Gingrich said that the Palestinians are an ‘invented people.’
    “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 to many places.”

    Such an approach to world affairs is consistent with both Walt Disney’s phantasmic vision of reality and Zionist Golda Meir who back in 1969 announced that there was “no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.”[1]
    No doubt, Gingrich’s/Meir’s ‘genius’ visionary idea should be applied to every American war and conflict. I guess that it is just a question of time before Gingrich announces that the Iraqi people are also ‘invented’, like the Palestinians they were also part of the Arab community. They may also have to schlep around and leave their beloved country to America and its Zionist rulers.
    In fact Gingrich’s approach can be applied to every people in the region and beyond. The Libyans, Syrians, Egyptians, Pakistanis and Afghanis are all invented and should look for a new place to accommodate them. But it can also be applied to the current Western financial turmoil and ethical crisis. All we have to do is just to agree that the current crisis is ‘invented’. We should then close our eyes and hope that once we open them again, peace and prosperity would flourish.
    In psychological terms Gingrich is subject to a STATE OF DENIAL.
    Considering Gingrich being a leading Republican candidate for the presidency,
    we have good reason to believe that if elected to lead America, the United States of America may as well become the UNITED STATES OF DENIAL.”

    • piotr on December 12, 2011, 12:30 am

      Gingrich is in the same time wholly unoriginal and illogical. Clearly, he repeats certain Zionist themes (if not universally accepted among the Zionists). For starters, why the lack of statehood during Ottoman period projects at the right, or lack of it, to statehood? Clearly, dissolution of an empire increases the number of states, unless we want to rectify it at put the Ottoman empire together again.

      The age of “nationhood” claim does not influence American inclinations to recognize it. Even today Kosovians (Kosovars) do not claim to be a separate nation, while Abkhasians claim the descent of ancient Kolchis which would correspond to patriarchal time for Israel (Bronze Age), and had an undeniable connection to a state conquered by Russians roughly 150 years ago. So we recognize Kosovo but not Abkhasia.

      Similarly, it was never an issue of relevance if members of a putative nation resort to terrorism or not. We recognized Kosovo and Israel, after all.

      At least, Gingrich’s standard works nicely in USA. The rights of Blacks cannot be considered seriously because until relatively recently they were called Colored or Negro. While the name “White Trash” has much longer provenance, and thus we should protect them (together with hillibillies, crackers and hicks).

      Then, assuming the illogical frame as correct, it would be correct to dismiss the “myth” of suffering of people who do not exists. By then, how these mythical creatures can surround and threaten Israel?

  10. spuxx on December 11, 2011, 4:57 pm

    “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
    – Balfour 1917

    The Balfour Decleration seems to recognise a Palestinian people, one which didn’t need to migrate across continents, revive a language, adapt to a new climate, learn new geography or eat new foods.

  11. tokyobk on December 11, 2011, 5:27 pm

    How long have there been “white” people? 300 – 400 years?

    • annie on December 11, 2011, 7:00 pm


      • tokyobk on December 12, 2011, 9:02 am

        “white” is a completely invented construct.

        Obviously, people recognized differences in skin colors. (for example the greeks thought that the people to the south were “too dark” and the north “too light” and of course the Greeks were just right.

        But it was not until pretty recently (google Blumenbach) that people began to divide themselves int races (five at first, then four, nowadays no one calls people red, so three ) that people called themselves “white and “black”.

        Even in new world settlement the Europeans tended to see themselves as tribes and natives as various tribes though obviously religion was a commonality among the Europeans.

  12. upsidedownism on December 11, 2011, 5:49 pm

    You could use Gingrich’s line of thinking to argue that the Holocaust never happened. There were indeed around 6 million jews were killed by the nazis during WW2. But there was no use of the term ‘jewish people’ at that time to refer to them. They must therefore have been an invented people, interlopers with no rights to any land in Europe. The fact that Israeli’s identify the Middle East and not Europe as their homeland merely buttresses the argument.
    The logical extension of Gingrich’s argument is that nothing like the Nakba could ever have happened. There were indeed up to a million people who had to move or be killed, and many were killed, when the state of israel was formed. But since for Gingrich there was no such thing as a ‘palestinian’ then this million people were driven out of land that didn’t belong to them, so no ‘nakba’.

    How often you see phrases referring to ‘Lebanese people’ or ‘Syrian people’ or ‘Jordanian people’ or ‘Egyptian people’. Not very often, because in those cases there is no need to do so. ‘palestinian people’ became a more widely used phrase because unlike in the other cases there existence came under threat from israel.

  13. Dex on December 11, 2011, 8:08 pm

    Wow, are Americans really THIS stupid? This is what our politics has come to regarding this issue…the moderator does nothing but allow these lies to continue; others on the panel either sit there in silence or try to out-do the other over who can kiss Israel’s ass more; the audience applauds like a bunch of trained monkeys.

    I have been living in Europe for the last 3 years, and just returned to the US. I didn’t think it was possible for Americans to get any fatter, lazier, and STUPID. Good grief, was I wrong…

    • J. Otto Pohl on December 12, 2011, 11:02 am

      I have been living overseas over four years now. Currently I live in Africa. But, yes Americans seem to be getting stupidier every day. Gingrich really epitomizes the statement “politicians, academics, and other professional idiots.”

  14. chet on December 11, 2011, 8:15 pm

    The Balfour Declaration, 1917 –

    “Foreign Office,
    November 2nd, 1917.

    Dear Lord Rothschild,
    I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

    “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.

    I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

    Yours sincerely
    Arthur James Balfour”

    In terms of the view of Great Britain, there was no doubt about the existence of Palestine in 1917

    • Hostage on December 12, 2011, 7:16 am

      In terms of the view of Great Britain, there was no doubt about the existence of Palestine in 1917

      Of course. The claim that Palestine wasn’t an Ottoman state is completely irrelevant. Many of the western powers, including the US and UK, had established jurisdictions there with their own laws and consular courts. Under the system of Ottoman capitulations, US citizens were exempt from all Ottoman Laws. Insofar as the US government was concerned, they were living in a jurisdiction, or country, called Palestine. See the discussion in “The Turkish American Controversy over Nationality”, Leland J. Gordon, The American Journal of International Law Vol. 25, No. 4 (Oct., 1931), pp. 658-669

      There were about 70,000 US citizens alone living in Ottoman Asia in the first two decades of the 20th Century. That was comparable to the population of some of the states here in America.

  15. DICKERSON3870 on December 11, 2011, 8:24 pm

    RE: “Palestinian national identity as it currently is recognized was a reaction to the creation of Israel…” ~ William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor at Cornell Law School

    MY COMMENT: Then why, pray tell, did the Zionists establish a newspaper in 1932 and name it “The Palestine Post”? Why did they dream up that name?


    (excerpts) ‘The Jerusalem Post’ is an Israeli daily English-language broadsheet newspaper, founded on December 1, 1932 by Gershon Agron as “The Palestine Post”
    …According to the Historical Jewish Press, ‘The Palestine Post’ was established “as part of a Zionist-Jewish initiative”, and “Zionist institutions considered the newspaper one of the most effective means of exerting influence on the British authorities”…
    …In 1950, two years after the State of Israel was declared, the paper was renamed ‘The Jerusalem Post’…

    SOURCE –

      • DICKERSON3870 on December 12, 2011, 7:12 pm


        (excerpts) “Palesteena”, or, “Lena from Palesteena”, was a 1920 song… It was originally recorded and performed by the Original Dixieland Jass Band, a band of New Orleans jazz musicians, who released it as an instrumental as a Victor 78, 18717-B, in 1920.
        The melody has a strong Klezmer influence.
        The lyrics are one of a number of novelty songs of the era with near-Eastern setting.

        LYRICS: “In the Bronx of New York City
        Lived a girl, she’s not so pretty
        Lena is her name…
        …She’s such a good musician
        She got a swell position
        To go across the sea to entertain.
        And so they shipped poor Lena
        Way out to Palesteena…
        …While the Arabs danced so gaily
        She would practice aily-aily
        Down old Palesteena way.
        Lena, she’s the Queen o’ Palesteena
        Goodness, how they love her concertina…
        …When she squeeks
        That squeeze-box stuff
        All those sheiks
        Just can’t get enough.
        She got fat but she got leaner (pr. “lee-na”)
        Pushing on her concertina
        Down old Palesteena way.”

        SOURCE –
        SANS VOCAL: Palesteena – Original Dixieland Jazz-Band , 1920 (VIDEO, 02:45) –
        VOCAL: “Leena From Palesteena” – The Singapore Slingers (VIDEO, 03:05) –

      • RoHa on December 13, 2011, 6:47 pm

        From the references to Arabs and sheiks you would think this Palesteena place was an Arab country.

      • DICKERSON3870 on December 13, 2011, 11:34 pm

        Not just references to Arabs and sheiks, but references to Palesteena, Arabs and sheiks sung to a melody that “has a strong Klezmer influence”!

      • Mooser on December 14, 2011, 10:35 pm

        Dickerson, thanks, and I won’t let it go to waste. “Leena from Palesteena” will be the high point of my repertoire.

    • DICKERSON3870 on December 14, 2011, 10:09 pm

      PHOTO: The ‘Palestine Post’ declares the establishment of Israel in 1948 (JPEG image) –

  16. DICKERSON3870 on December 11, 2011, 8:38 pm

    RE: “And here’s Romney again doubling down with his insane
    foreign policy positioning of abdicating American foreign policy towards Israel . . . to Israel. Does he really see that as a winning concept for most Americans. ~ Alex Kane

    MY COMMENT: More likely he sees it as a winning concept for most Iowa Republican caucus attendees.

    EXCERPT: “…experts estimate that a staggering 60 percent of Iowa Republican caucus attendees are Evangelicals…”
    SOURCE –

    • annie on December 11, 2011, 9:01 pm

      hi dickerson. you’re quoting me there, not alex. i hat tipped him because after i drafted the article and video adam sent me the pdf and text of this segment from the video which alex had sent him (helpful text). so i added the link and final blockquote, plus my additional commentary at adam’s suggestion.

      • DICKERSON3870 on December 12, 2011, 6:16 pm

        RE: “hi dickerson. you’re quoting me there, not alex.” ~ Annie Robbins

        MY REPLY: “Oops”, as Rick Perry might say. Yesterday was one of my “bad brain days”*. That’s what happens when I sleep really, really late (12 hours or so). And I almost always do.
        *I long ago stopped worrying about ‘bad hair days’.

        P.S. Annie Robbins? Do I know you? The only Annie I am familiar with is Mondoweiss’ “annie”. Oh well, the more the merrier, I suppose. “It’s [Festivus is]the most wonderful time of the year…” Sure, it still sucks, but not quite as much.

        P.P.S. The fundies are a big part of the GOP in both Iowa and South Carolina. I’m not certain about New Hampshire. After that, Romney will probably just toss ‘total abdication to Israel’ down the old memory hole. That’s politics in “America the amnesiac”!

      • DICKERSON3870 on December 12, 2011, 6:31 pm

        RE: “The fundies are a big part of the GOP in both Iowa and South Carolina. I’m not certain about New Hampshire.” ~ me, above

        FOUND IT!
        Iowa 60%
        South Carolina 55%
        New Hampshire 19%
        Florida 31%
        SOURCE –

      • Hostage on December 12, 2011, 10:10 pm

        RE: “The fundies are a big part of the GOP in both Iowa and South Carolina.

        The CBS poll simply includes all voters who describe themselves as evangelical or born again. That would naturally include members of the United Methodist Church, e.g.

        They tend to view the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories as an injustice or apartheid – and they support BDS.

      • DICKERSON3870 on December 13, 2011, 9:51 pm

        That said, George W. Bush claims to be a Methodist.

      • Hostage on December 14, 2011, 2:06 am

        That said, George W. Bush claims to be a Methodist.

        He was the first President since Truman to formally endorse a plan to establish a Palestinian State. See for example, the Reagan Plan which ruled-out the possibility of U.S. support for a Palestinian state.

      • Mooser on December 14, 2011, 10:37 pm

        “That said, George W. Bush claims to be a Methodist.”

        So that’s it! I always thought there was Methodism in his madness.

  17. CloakAndDagger on December 11, 2011, 9:28 pm
  18. annie on December 11, 2011, 10:40 pm

    well here’s one dem politician not rolling over and joining the fray. from AP

    Carl Levin, a Democratic senator from Michigan, said “Gingrich’s cynical efforts to attract attention to himself with divisive and destructive statements will not help his presidential ambitions since they are aimed at putting the peace between Israel and the Palestinians that Americans yearn for even further out of reach than it is today.”

    The presidential hopeful, Levin said, “offered no solutions — just a can of gasoline and a match.”

    Some Israeli politicians on the margins of the Israeli consensus welcomed Gingrich’s stance. Danny Danon, deputy speaker of Israel’s parliament, and a minority voice among his hawkish Likud party, said Gingrich “understands very well the reality we live in in the Middle East” and said his statement on the Palestinians is shared by “most of the Jewish people, not just in Israel.”

    Israeli historian Tom Segev, however, said the argument about the existence of the Palestinian people is a thing of the past.

    “There is no intelligent person today who argues about the existence of the Palestinian people,” Segev said.

    “Nations are created gradually. I don’t think the Palestinians are less of a nation than the Americans,” he added.

    actually the palestinians have a longer history as a ‘people’ than americans..but i suppose that is beside the point.

    i recommend the rest of the article too.

    • on December 11, 2011, 11:14 pm

      “Israeli historian Tom Segev, however, said the argument about the existence of the Palestinian people is a thing of the past.
      “There is no intelligent person today who argues about the existence of the Palestinian people,” Segev said.”

      “There is no intelligent person today who…”
      This one sentence says it all.

      (a)If there is no intelligent person today, who argues about the existence of Palestinian people.
      and (b) Mr Gingrich argues about the existence of Palestinian people.
      Then, simple, logical conclusion is: (c) Mr Gingrich is no intelligent person.
      I do agree with that. 100%.

    • Chaos4700 on December 12, 2011, 9:07 pm

      That spin control is kind of pitiful, though. How does a “marginal” politician with a “minority” viewpoint become Deputy Speaker, exactly? Am I missing something? Are there more than one Deputy Speakers in the Knesset?

  19. JuliaNoel on December 11, 2011, 11:03 pm

    I think it is past time-way past time- for the artificially created state of Israel to be moved. This latest nonsense by Gingrich and the too many to name all crimes of this entity have shown that it cannot exist peacefully with the people it dispossessed. Time to move the warmongering entity to Washington; they fund it; they should live with it.
    It is perfectly evident that Israel just gets worse and morons like Gingrich will continue to suck up to it. So, let them live with it and see just what hellish neighbours they have foisted on the persecuted Palestinians.
    There is nothing wrong with asking Israel to be moved; it was artificially created in the first place and more than a few other areas touted before the poor Palestinians were lumbered with it. I suspect the same horror would have been for any other nation that had been lumbered with it.

    • piotr on December 12, 2011, 12:35 am

      Frankly, I do not understand: make Nakba in Anacosta (or Georgetown) to make room for immigrants?

  20. john h on December 12, 2011, 2:27 am

    nice to have an American tell the truth about the war they are in the middle of and the casualties they’re taking

    Yes, it would be. The truth on this is unknown to virtually all Americans…

    “In the past decade, approximately 25 Israeli have been killed and between 7 and 8 thousand Palestinians, the kind of ratio that even the Nazis didn’t achieve when murdering hostages in Yugoslavia”.

    • john h on December 12, 2011, 2:50 am

      Correction!! I thought that Israeli figure was too low but failed to check before posting.

      The more correct figure is at least 6,537 Palestinians, including 1471 children, and 1,092 Israelis, including 125 children. The injury figures are 10,792 Israelis and 59,575 Palestinians.

  21. traveller on December 12, 2011, 4:42 am

    Even Jabotinsky referred to them as Palestinians. Excerpt from ‘The Iron Wall’, 1923:

    “They have the precise psychology that we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.

    We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population.

  22. NorthOfFortyNine on December 12, 2011, 5:23 am

    Here is Remnick on this issue:

    Again — again, again, again! — and more agains yet after reading Remnick — trodding down the path of “National claims” is a very dodgy business. Do advocates of the Palestinian cause really want to get into a Big Swinging Dick contest as to Whose Nation Is More Worthy? Bad idea.

    First off, I don’t think you can socialise rights. There is no such thing as “group rights” and the whole notion of “group rights” has corroded political thought for too long now. People have rights. Groups have rights only insofar has people — individuals – confer their rights to some broader decision-making entity.

    The Palestine-Israeli conflict is a matter of the gross violation of individual rights.

    The Palestinians are dumb dumb dumb to fight the battle on the “nation state level”. We’ll end up contesting biblical reference counts and the like.

    People have rights. Full stop. -N49.

    • homingpigeon on December 12, 2011, 12:41 pm

      I agree with NorthofFortynine so much! Too often we allow the Zionists to set the terms for the debate and end up their countering absurdities with other absurdities – the Big Swinging Dick Contest, as you put it. In the past I have given “eggplant alerts.” A Hasbarist announces that Israel has the right to the land because they were the first to cultivate eggplants and friends of the Palestinians work themselves into a frenzy trying to prove that the Palestinians were the ones who invented the eggplants.

      So we do have to return to the individual rights, including property rights, and the rights of individuals to live in their ancestral towns even if they own no real estate. It does not matter if Palestine was ever a state, if the Palestinians ever existed as a “people,” if Jerusalem is mentioned more times in the Torah than the Koran, if Trans-Jordan was governed under the Palestine Mandate adminstration for a brief period, if the word Palestine was imposed by Emperor Trajan or used by Pliny 500 years earlier, if Jews are descended from the ancient inhabitants or if they are Khazar converts, or if the Palestinians are descended from the nomads from Arabia or the ancient Canaanites.

      We must break away from the eggplant cultivation debates and focus on the fact that a community of people lived between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. They were descended from a mix of all peoples who had ever lived in or conquered the land, and there were several minorities that hadn’t quite mixed in. They overwhelmingly spoke Arabic along with a smattering of other languages. They were predominantly Muslim with a few dozen religious minorities (counting all the Christian sub-sects). The majority had written history of their presence in the land on specific locations far longer than that of the immigrant civilization of North America. And there were a few who were more recent arrivals – a Bosnian village here, and Uzbek community there, and an African quarter there. (That’s a bone for you Hasbarists to play with).

      And the fundamental truth remains that the bulk of these people were either wrenched from their homes and farms by Zionist immigrants or allowed to remain under a harassing military occupation. And it didn’t stop with the initial onslaught – it happened to one more house yesterday, is happening to one more farm today, and will happen to one more olive orchard tomorrow.

      Foreign immigrants are dispossessing indigenous people – we must hold our focus on that core fact.

      • NorthOfFortyNine on December 12, 2011, 4:06 pm

        Well said.

      • john h on December 12, 2011, 9:45 pm

        Fully agree with you two.

        Talking about a swinging dick contest, your plea will fall on deaf American ears; they think America has the biggest and the best even though it’s now pretty well worn out.

        Gingrich and the other also-rans love to play house with their paltry boy’s toys.

      • Hostage on December 12, 2011, 9:39 pm

        It does not matter if . . . if Jerusalem is mentioned more times in the Torah than the Koran

        The Torah is the name given by the Jews to the first five books of the Bible. Jerusalem isn’t actually mentioned in those books at all, although it is mentioned in the so-called oral Torah or Talmud. There were several ancient Israelite temples: Shiloh, Mount Gerizim, Jerusalem, Arad, and Leontopolis. The Torah doesn’t mention the place that the Lord chose by name. For example, compare the Jewish and Samaritan versions of the Pentateuch.

  23. NorthOfFortyNine on December 12, 2011, 6:06 am

    From WaPo debate FactCheckORama:

    “These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, ‘If there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?’ We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. ”


    During the debate, Gingrich reiterated his controversial claim the Palestinians are an “invented people,” which has been criticized in some Republican quarters. But he also raised a new charge about Palestinian textbooks, which he said the United States pays for “through our aid money.”

    This funding claim is correct only in an indirect sense: The United States is the largest single-state donor for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), providing nearly $250 million in 2011. As a recent Congressional Research Service report made clear, this funding is closely scrutinized by Congress. But UNRWA underwrites the schooling of Palestinian refugees and thus provides money for textbooks

    The issue of Palestinian textbooks is controversial, one the Palestinian Authority says it is addressing. We cannot immediately find evidence of the statement claimed by Gingrich, and it is not clear if he is referring to a statement in one of the newer textbooks.

    There have been a number of reports by pro-Israel groups that say the textbooks in Palestinian schools reinforce hatred of Jews. But one Palestinian expert has argued that studies in English that claim to show such bias in Palestinian textbooks are “based on innuendo, exaggeration, and downright lies.”

    Here is what the State Department’s human rights report said about the new Palestinian text books:

    The PA Ministry of Education and Higher Education completed the revision of its primary and secondary textbooks in 2006. International academics concluded the textbooks did not incite violence against Jews, but showed imbalance, bias, and inaccuracy. Some maps in Palestinian textbooks did not depict the current political reality, showing neither Israel nor the settlements. Palestinian textbooks, used in Palestinian schools, as well as in Jerusalem municipality-administered schools in East Jerusalem, inconsistently defined the 1967 borders and failed to label areas and cities with both Arabic and Hebrew names.

    But the Israeli media has reported that Israeli educational system “is hardly better than the Palestinian one when it comes to inserting political messages in textbooks.”

    “This president decided he was gonna try and negotiate for Israel by sayin’, “Let’s go back to the ‘67 borders.” That’s not what Israel wanted to hear.”


    Romney is greatly oversimplifying what President Obama said earlier this year, in an admittedly controversial speech. Obama made it clear his proposal included land swaps: “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

    We wrote at the time that, in diplomatic terms, this was a significant shift for a U.S. president, in part because of what he dropped various diplomatic code words of meaning to Israelis. But Romney is taking it a step too far, especially because Obama almost immediately clarified his statement in his response to Israeli concerns.

    “The fact is, the Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story. Somebody oughta have the courage to go all the way back to the 1921 League of Nations mandate for a Jewish homeland, point out the context in which Israel came into existence, and ‘Palestinian’ did not become a common term until after 1977.”


    Let’s stipulate that both Israelis and Palestinians have their own historic narratives, and woe be the Fact Checker who tries to decide which narrative is right.

    But Gingrich’s claim that “Palestinian” did not become a common term until 1977 is bizarre. The very League of Nations mandate that he mentions was called “The British Mandate for Palestine.” The text of the declaration mentions the word “Palestine” 45 times and “Palestinian” twice.

  24. Talkback on December 12, 2011, 9:22 am

    “Palestinian national identity as it currently is recognized was a reaction to the creation of Israel and most prominently the 1967 war when Israel captured territory controlled by Egypt and Jordan.” (William A. Jacobson).

    Palestinian Nationaliy allready existed, when Palestine was detached from the Ottoman Empire and became a state which was put under mandate. It was officialy enacted with the Palestine Citizenship Order from 1925 and included all the people living in Palestine with former Ottoman citizenship.

    The PLO definition excludes Jews (and their descendants) which emigrated to Palestine during the mandate. It is not an ethnic term but a citizenship. The whole debate whether this term “Palestinian” means an ethnic group is fallacious and wants to divert from the fact that there’s no Jewish citizenship today and still Israel wants to be the state of the Jews and not the state of the Israelis (including the Arab Israelis which are maintained expelled and denationalized).

  25. talknic on December 12, 2011, 11:25 am

    William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor at Cornell Law School hasn’t heard of the Mandate for PALESTINE? 48 times “Palestine”

    or UNGA res 181? “Palestine” 48 times

    Hasn’t read the first line of text here?

    My mind buckles when I see cretins with professor credentials

  26. DanMazella on December 12, 2011, 11:47 am

    The Term Palestine is not named after the Palestinians.
    Its the Roman name the Roman gave for Israel after they defeated Israel.
    They gave the new name after the Philistines who were from Crete and not Arabs.

    • mig on December 12, 2011, 2:47 pm

      And American Indians were named by Christopher Columbus. Because he made mistake, and thought that he entered India, place he was looking for or new route to there. Dan, are you trying to invent a wheel again ?

      Another thing,

      Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931.
      The 23rd day of July, 1931.

      Lord President. Mr. Secretary Wedgwood Benn.
      Earl of Athlone. Sir Maurice de Bunsen.

      WHEREAS by the Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925 (hereinafter referred
      to as the Principal Order), provision was made for the regulation of the grant
      and acquisition of Palestinian citizenship:

      AND WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Principal Order as hereinafter
      set forth:

      NOW, THEREFORE, His Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers
      in this behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise in His
      Majesty vested, is pleased, by and with the advice of His Privy Council,
      to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:–

      1.–(1) Turkish subjects who were habitually resident in the territory of
      Palestine upon the sixth day of August, 1924, but ceased to be so habitually
      resident before the first day of August, 1925, shall be deemed to have become
      Palestinian citizens, unless before the date of this Order they shall have
      voluntarily acquired another nationality.

      (2) Nevertheless, the High Commissioner shall have power in the case of
      any person who becomes a Palestinian citizen by virtue of the preceding
      paragraph and shall make an application to this effect within four years
      of the date of this Order, to apply to any such person the provisions of
      paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 1 of the Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925,
      and to extend the period of option provided for therein.

      2.–(1) Article 10 (1) of the Principal Order is hereby repealed and the
      following is substituted therefor:

      “Where it appears to the High Commissioner that a certificate of
      naturalization granted by him has been obtained by false representation
      or fraud or by concealment of material circumstances, or that the person
      to whom the certificate is granted has, since the grant, been for a
      period of not less than three years ordinarily resident out of Palestine
      and has not maintained substantial connection with Palestine, or has shown
      himself by act or speech to be disaffected, or disloyal to the Government
      of Palestine, the High Commissioner may, subject to the approval of one of
      His Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, by order revoke the
      certificate, and the order of revocation shall have effect from such
      date as the High Commissioner may direct.”

      (2) Article 10 (2) of the Principal Order is hereby repealed, and the
      following is substituted therefor:–“The High Commissioner may, for the
      like reasons, and subject to the like approval, annul a Certificate of
      Citizenship granted under the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 hereof,
      or a declaration of the acquisition or resumption of citizenship made under
      the provisions of Articles 12 (1) and 14 (2) of this Order.”

      3. Article 11 (1) (b) of the Principal Order is hereby repealed, and the
      following is substituted therefor:–“The High Commissioner shall not make any
      such Order as aforesaid in the case of a wife who was at birth, or who became,
      in virtue of Articles 1 and 6 of this Order, a Palestinian citizen, unless he is
      satisfied that if she had held a certificate of naturalization in her own right,
      the certificate could properly have been revoked under this Order.”

      4. His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, in Council, may at any time
      revoke, alter, or amend this Order.

      5. This Order shall be published and proclaimed in Palestine, and the
      date of such publication shall be deemed to be the date of the commencement
      of this Order.

      6. This Order shall be known as the Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment)
      Order, 1931, and shall be read and construed as one with the Principal


      • Hostage on December 12, 2011, 8:56 pm

        mig the United States was a signatory of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Treaty. It’s still obligated to recognize persons of Palestinian nation origin in accordance with both of those agreements as a matter of inter-temporal law.

      • CloakAndDagger on December 12, 2011, 9:24 pm


        The depth and breadth of your knowledge is truly breathtaking – and quite humbling!

      • Hostage on December 12, 2011, 10:56 pm

        The depth and breadth of your knowledge is truly breathtaking – and quite humbling!

        Well I happened to know some resident aliens that came to the US from the mandated state of Palestine. The things that I know were frequently handed to me on a silver platter by others. See for example these sources on nationality in the State of Palestine:
        *Norman Bentwich (Legal Secretary of Palestine), Nationality in Mandated Territories Detached from Turkey, 7 British Yearbook of International Law 97 (1926)
        *Mutaz Qafisheh, The International Law Foundations Of Palestinian Nationality, PhD thesis Institut Universitaire De Hautes Études Internationales, Genève
        *President Calvin Coolidge’s Proclamation on the quota for the Palestinian nationality in accordance with the Comprehensive Immigration Law (1924)
        *President Herbert Hoover’s Proclamation 1872 – “Limiting the Immigration of Aliens Into the United States on the Basis of National Origin” – Palestine (with Trans-Jordan) (British mandate) 100
        *Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said “The use of the term “Palestine” is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its “revived usage enrages” individual Israelis”. Crawford said “It is difficult to see how it “enrages” Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, ”in a de jure sense”, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. That it was not a simple matter since there was a ”quota nationality”, in regard to which U.S. legislation and regulation continue to employ the term Palestine. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341.
        *By definition territories that were under mandate are still treated as separate foreign states under US law. US immigration law, U.S. Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1101. Definitions says “(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.—-000-.html

      • annie on December 12, 2011, 11:27 pm

        hostage, your archives are one of the jewels of this site. i hope students in present day and for years to come will be mining these archives for their thesis. thank you so much for educating us.

        The things that I know were frequently handed to me on a silver platter by others.

        but it takes the mind to process that information and put it to good use. i am so grateful you spend your time educating us.

      • CloakAndDagger on December 12, 2011, 11:31 pm

        And modest too! I have been reading your posts – you are like a walking encyclopedia!

    • Chaos4700 on December 12, 2011, 7:13 pm

      Before 1948, there were no Israelis. There were only Polish, German and Russian Jews.

      • annie on December 12, 2011, 8:56 pm

        Before 1948, there were no Israelis. There were only Polish, German and Russian Jews.

        and palestinian jews

      • Chaos4700 on December 12, 2011, 9:04 pm

        I suspect fewer Palestinian Jews joined Israel than Israelis care to admit. To a colonists, a native is always a threat.

    • Hostage on December 12, 2011, 8:47 pm

      Its the Roman name the Roman gave for Israel after they defeated Israel.

      No it is the Hebrew term used for the coastal plain, which wasn’t part of the Land of the seven nations, or the land of Israel: פלשתים, plishtim Compare Shemot/Exodus Chapter 13:17 It came to pass when Pharaoh let the people go, that God did not lead them [by] way of the land of the Philistines for it was near, because God said, Lest the people reconsider when they see war and return to Egypt


      Amos Chapter 9:7 Are you not like the children of the Cushites to Me, O children of Israel? says the Lord. Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and Aram from Kir?

      They gave the new name after the Philistines who were from Crete and not Arabs.

      Oh for heavens sake, Israeli geneticists claim that Jews originated in the Middle East because they share a common male ancestor with the Palestinian Arabs. The Hebrews appear to have adopted several other languages and cultures besides Arabic. BTW, Jund Filastin was a district with it’s captial in Ramle during the golden age of the Arab Caliphate.

    • pjdude on December 13, 2011, 4:42 pm

      rome never fought Israel. but than again why let facts get in the way of your want of things you have no right to.

      also the eytmology of the word palestine predates any historical evidence for a jewish state so well you SOL

  27. GalenSword on December 12, 2011, 3:23 pm
  28. john h on December 13, 2011, 1:54 am

    Hanan Ashrawi of the PLO has invited Gingrich

    “to relearn his history and come to Palestine to see for himself, not only the suffering the Palestinian people face on a daily basis due to the Israeli military occupation, but also to experience the rich culture and history of the Palestinian people…

    it is unbelievable that Mr. Gingrich, who studied history at two outstanding American universities and even taught history, could make such a misguided comment, solely for the sake of political pandering.”

    She noted that Gingrich labeled Palestinians as terrorists “on the same day that we mourned the loss of a young Palestinian peacefully protesting the military occupation of his land.”

  29. Leper Colonialist on December 13, 2011, 1:55 pm

    Absolutely amazing. Gingrich denies the reality of the Palstinians, denies their Right of Return to pander to his Likudist would-be supporters, yet supports an ill-disguised mass amnesty for millions of illegal aliens with no claim in either fact or right on the USA, all the while slobbering out some crocodile tears about how he doesn’t want to break up the families of those illegals.

    As the kids say, WTH? and WTF?

    Can anyone check to see if Newt’s “degeees” are legit or from the back of some matchbook cover institution of hiigher learning?

  30. mikeo on December 14, 2011, 4:17 am

    Palestinians are an invented people.

    Ergo this must be a figment of Gingrinch’s fevered imagination

Leave a Reply