Published: Wednesday, Dec. 14 2011 6:55 a.m. MST
Peterson is making a habit of getting it wrong. His pro Islamic sentiments are
getting in the way of his historical accuracy.1. Prior to the
disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in WWI Palestine waas a province of the
Empire. One of several that had Arabs in them. There was no distinction made
for Arabs, Christian, Jews, Bedouin or anything else.2. When the
British took over in WWI they had already promised a national home for the Jews
in Palestine, which at that time included Trans Jordan and the Golan Heights,
part of Lebanon but not the Gaza strip (that was part of Egypt).3.
In the 1920s pan Arab nationalism arose and the British in a monumental error
made one Haj Amin al Husseini Mufti of Jerusalem. al Hussein created the
Palestinian idea. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s riots, insurrections and civil
war was encouraged by al Husseini and his ilk.4. In 1935 or 1936
The British ran him out of Palestine and he found a home and a cause in Nazi
Germany. He aided and advised in the establishment of the Holocaust. He raised
two divisions of Bosnian Muslims to serve the SS.
By the way Dr. Peterson, Morrocco is not Arab it is Berber.
Port Alice, your arguments just re-hash the cliches and arguments that
pro-Israel, Anti-Arab, right wingers, dig out when confronted by truths and
facts. These arguments not only fail to respond to Dan Petersen's arguments but
they are intellectually dishonest as well as they fail to explain the historical
background. As Dr. Petersen made a sufficient argument against Gingrich's
miserable attempt at appeasing the Jewish lobby and AIPAC, I will proceed to put
your points in proper historical perspective.1. Your first point was
answered adequately by Dr. Petersen. I will add though that Arabs, even under
the Turks, always distinguished themselves by nationality. The area constituting
Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Jordan were always called Al Sham (if you were in
those countries you were called a Shami), Saudi, the other Gulf emirates &
Yemen were always called Al Hijaz (if you lived here you were a Hijazi), if you
lived in Iraq you were called an Iraqi. Egypt was always Masr and the rest of
the Arab North Africa was called Al Maghreb. There were other regional
distinctions that I will not go into here due to lack of space.(..Continued below)
2. I cannot believe that you actually condone the fact that the British gifted a
country they occupied and did not own to a people who already were citizens of
Europe. I won't go into why that was so anti-semitic by the British but I will
add that the British promised the Arabs of Hijaz and Al Sham that if they helped
them defeat the Turks they will give them autonomy over all Arab lands. When the
war was won the British and the French committed the ultimate act of dishonesty
and treason by becoming the new occupiers of the Arab region.3. Haj
Amin. YES, Arabs supported Nazi Germany but it was not out of support for the
Anti-Jewish propaganda. It was out of sympathy towards the Germans who the Arabs
felt were betrayed by the British and other WWI allies in the treaty of
Versailles. If you recall, the British split Germany in a similar manner to the
manner by which they split the Arab region among themselves.(Cont.)
4. And finally, As far as Haj Amin's call for action against the British let us
not forget that these were acts of a man whose country was occupied. Let me also
remind you that the Arabs were helpless and were killed by the dozens by the
British. The real killing of the British was caused by the Zionist Jews which
culminated in the King David Hotel massacre committed by the Aragon gangs lead
by the late Manchem Begen who was Prime Minister of Israel.
One more thin. Please watch a video on YT called The General's Son by Miko
Italy had Berlisconi. America can have Gingerich.If nothing else,
it will be more entertaining than any cruddy "reality" TV show.
Dr. Peterson, as usual, is brilliant. He combines some very amazing qualities.
He is a great speaker as well as a great writer. Quite often those talents do
not reside in the same person. Finally, his intellectual firepower, and sound
logic and reasoning are impeccable. Thanks.
Glad a real scholar cleared that up. Gingrich is the one that is newly being
Historically Arabs had no national identity. National identity is a western
view. Arabs have always identified themselves by tribe. While I'm not much of a
Newt supporter his comments about Palestinians is correct.
Historically, NOBODY had much of a national identity. Dr. Peterson points out
in this very article that nationalism as we know it originated in Europe,
basically in the nineteenth century. But it spread to the Middle East within a
few decades.The Germans used to identify themselves by tribe, too.
That doesn't demonstrate that there are no Germans.
It seems to me the Deseret News has been Mitt Romney's paper for a long time.
I encourage people not to blind themselves from any weaknesses in a
candidate. Newt has many, as does Mitt. Romney is a flip flopper, nothing
more. He isn't as bad as most liberal paint hin-but "not that bad" is
no qualifier for being a president. There is one man with a consistent message
in a republican party. Can you guess who?
Re: Ronnie W. | 7:00 p.m. Dec. 13, 2011 Layton, UT Jon
Gingrich has a habit of making things up. Nevertheless, it begs the point. The
Palestinians now exist and have for quite a long time. They are a sizable group
that is identifiable and has cohesiveness. To say that they are a made up
nation or people is like saying the United States is a made up nation and should
therefore not be recognized. It is nonsense, does not reflect reality, and
evades dealing with the problem. If this is the way Gingrich evaluates issues
and leads, he is unfit to lead the nation, let alone be a responsible teacher in
Israel is an invented country. They should call themselves Judah because that
is who their ancestors were. They are primarily from the tribe of Judah.
Israel is the other 10 tribes who were lost, and will return if the Bible is
correct.Boy will they be upset when they find out what is being done
in their name.Whether or not the Palestinians are an invented
people, they are the people whose houses and fields have been taken by 'Israel'.
They are the ones whose grandmothers have keys to houses when they fled in 1948
when they were driven out.
Re: "The Germans used to identify themselves by tribe, too. That doesn't
demonstrate that there are no Germans."True enough, but Arabs,
in particular, and Muslims in general -- to this day -- are governed much more
by tribal, religious, and familial politics than by any national identity.
Legislative assemblies, to the extent they function at all in modern Islamic
nations, are typically divided, either de jure or de facto, into departments or
factions, open to and representative of a single tribe, family, or religious
sect. Many Arab Bedu even serve proudly and well in the Israeli Defense Forces,
since their tribal leaders command it.The same is not true of modern
Germany -- though one might argue Belgium, Bosnia, and even Canada suffer from
modern forms of tribalism.It's this concept that Mr. Gingrich's
comment addresses. Arab nationalists, pan-Arabs, and Islamists have crafted a
mythical "Palestinian" identity in a cynical attempt to create a
victim about which they can unite disparate tribal interests and identities.But, in reality, it boils down to hatred for Jews and Israel.
"But, in reality, it boils down to hatred for Jews and Israel"..as
opposed to the Jews what?History lessons aside..why would anyone
interviewing for the job of the worlds chief peace promoter say something that
only has one consequence..yes dear, those pants do make your butt look
bigger..what? If you don't know the truth how are you ever going to deal with
it..slam!..dear now open the door so we can talk about it, how am I ever going
to help you from outside in the cold?
No matter how Peterson tries to obscure it, he essentially just confirmed what
Newt said. The Palestinian State is a fiction, making them an invented people.
Thank you Jabra Ghneim for demonstrating that it is possible to post multiple
comments while still only single spacing!
So, just to be sure I understand some of the arguments posted above. It is okay
to take land from tribes that have lived in an area for centuries, but not from
citizens of a nation that have lived there for much less time.Is
that the argument? Tribal means no property rights despite a relatively long
history but nation means property rights despite a relatively short history?Does this mean the size of the group or what we call it makes the
difference?Aren't tribes extended families? Do we not respect
families?What about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Were not the
promises to them made when they were still tribes?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments