Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Gingrich and the “Invented People”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/11/gingrich-invented-palestinians/
 
Gingrich and the “Invented People”
Jonathan S. Tobin
 
Newt Gingrich is taking a lot of flack for telling a Jewish cable
channel that the Palestinians are an “invented people” that has been
used primarily to sustain a war against Israel. 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 anyway?
 
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 but 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
since 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 that
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 that
it was refreshing to hear a major American political figure state the
truth about the history of the Palestinians and to say that 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 that as president he will have to be
more guarded in his statements and even fairer to express skepticism
about his ability to do so.

 about his ability to do so.
 
If Newt gets the nomination, his tongue will invent Obama's second
term.

 colonies.
 
vero. E il sionismo [anche] una reazione alle persecuzioni.