Daniel Peterson is an academic who is far more knowledgeable than Gingrich.
Newt's political rhetoric is a clear signal that his best profession is as a
Palestine was liberated from the Turks in World War One, after centuries of
foreign domination by said Turks. Everyone in Palestine were
"Palestinians" surely, including any Jews and there were some even
then who had returned to their historic homeland after centuries of exile.The British had a thirty year "mandate" a responsibility given
them under the terms of the Peace Treaties agreed to by the victors of World War
One. This included some encouragement for the Jews to establish a homeland in
Palestine. The State of Israel was founded later (1947 if I am not mistaken)
after the early withdrawal of the British due to anti-British terrorism directed
by both Jews and Arabs in the Mandated territory.The Palestinians
may be, to some extent, an invention, since their view of "Palestine"
excludes all Jews and only includes those Arabs who fled from the Jews after
they were soundly trounced by the Jews, when these Arabs tried to exclude them
from Palestine/Israel. Israel is surrounded by hostile peoples who have hated
them for centuries, peoples who favored the Nazis of World War Two and, like
those nazis, wanted to perform genocide upon the Jews.
Re: "Peace between the two groups cannot be achieved until each side
recognizes the legitimacy of the other."Which is the same as
saying peace cannot be achieved.Late-comer "Palestinians"
[whose origins actually trace to the Arabic peninsula, and who have no
historical, cultural, religious, or politician affinity with ancient Mycenaean
Philistines] have made it clear they will never accept a middle-eastern polity
in which Jews are safe from Arabic control and predation.
It's more than a little ironic that someone would call Palestinians
"invented" in order to show support for Israelis, who by any sensible
definition (if indeed there is a sensible definition for this silly concept)
must fit the bill at least as well.Declaring certain groups
"invented" does nothing to advance peace in the Middle East. The
group we now call Palestinians has maintained a continuous presence in the area
for thousands of years. The group we call Israelis has de facto power over the
region at present. Both groups can legitimately claim the area as an ancestral
homeland. Peace between the two groups cannot be achieved until each side
recognizes the legitimacy of the other.
Flashback;; Other than George Bush, Reagan was the worst president in history.
He Quadrupled our national debt. That would be like Obama turning a 15 trillion
dollar debt into 60 trillion. The Gop hails Reagan as the role model for
conservatives, but the facts just doesnt bear it out. The best president in the
last 40 years was Bill Clinton. The facts does bear this out.
Palestine is the name of a place more than the name of a people. True, the word
derives from the ancient 'Philistine' which dwelt in that area. Remember David,
who slew the Philistine giant in a battle between the Israelis and the
Philistines? But David (and the Israelis) came later. There were possibly
other groups besides Philistines dwelling in the area at the same time.In any event, according to the Holy Bible, the Jews were taken captive, mostly
removed from the area and disbursed throughout much of Europe and elsewhere.
Who knows where else? Syria, Persia, Mesopotamia.In 1948 the UN
established Palestine as a homeland for the disbursed Jews who began
'returning'... to the consternation of the Arabs... those who lived there and
other in the Arab world. So, what do we have now? An area containing Jews and
others who call themselves Palestinians which are probably made up of
descendants of those who lived there anciently and others who moved there for
any number of reasons.Will they ever get along? No. Not in a
Newt ain't the guy. And if Republicans would just relalize that he is just what
the Tea Party is fighing against, namely Washington Insiders. Newt is the
personification of a Washington Insider. He has too much baggage to be
president. Obama will smear him, and we don't want that. Paul is also very
bad.The big problem is, all the Republicans want to channel Reagan.
The only problem is, none of them have the pragmatic streak that he showed and
none of them, especially Newt is as nice a man as Reagan was.
Ronnie W.When you say that Mitt is a flip flopper, nothing more, you
betray yourself as a shallow voter who only reads headlines and liberal talking
points. If you read Romney's book, "No Apology", his website, and
really listened to him (not soundbites taken out of context, you would find that
he is much more than your simplistic remark.Those who support Newt
Gingrich need to do a lot more research on him and his political background.
Google Gingrich Esquire Magazine for an in depth look at his background.
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?
Thank you Jabra Ghneim for demonstrating that it is possible to post multiple
comments while still only single spacing!
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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
Re: Ronnie W. | 7:00 p.m. Dec. 13, 2011 Layton, UT Jon
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?
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.
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.
Glad a real scholar cleared that up. Gingrich is the one that is newly being
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.
Italy had Berlisconi. America can have Gingerich.If nothing else,
it will be more entertaining than any cruddy "reality" TV show.
One more thin. Please watch a video on YT called The General's Son by Miko
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.
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.)
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)
By the way Dr. Peterson, Morrocco is not Arab it is Berber.
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.