The region we now call the Middle East is an elaborate mosaic. Among its peoples are the Arabs, denizens of the desert who became great conquerors and colonists. The Persians possessed a mighty empire in antiquity — and will again if Iran’s current rulers have their way. The most vibrant city of the Turks is Istanbul, the Christian capital known as Constantinople until it fell to Sultan Mehmed II in the 15th century. The Middle East also is home to such ethno-religious groups as Maronites, Druze, and Alawites; to powerful clans such as the Hashemites and the House of Sa’ud; to Kurds, a nation without a state, and to Jews, reestablished as a nation in their ancient homeland.
The other day, Newt Gingrich waded into this historical labyrinth, setting off a minor brouhaha by noting that only recently did Arabs on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean claim to constitute a distinct nation called “Palestine” — the name given to the area by Imperial Rome. On this basis, he referred to Palestinians as an “invented” people.
Advertisement
The accuracy of his statement is beyond dispute. In the wake of the Second World War, when the United Nations recommended partitioning Palestine into two states, it did not use the term “Palestinian” to refer to Arab-speaking residents. At that time, pan-Arabism, the idea of forming a single, united Arab nation, was far more compelling than any parochial identification. The question was how to divide what, for 400 years, had been a corner of the Ottoman Empire between the Arabs of Palestine and the Jews of Palestine. Of the two, the latter were, at that time, more commonly referred to as Palestinians. Their newspaper was the Palestine Post (now the Jerusalem Post), their contributions to the performing arts included the Palestine Orchestra (now the Israel Philharmonic), and their American-based charitable organization was the United Palestine Appeal.
From 1948 until 1967, Gaza and the West Bank were under Egyptian and Jordanian control respectively. No serious demands for a Palestinian state were heard. Only after Israel took possession of those territories in a defensive war against Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states did Palestinian nationhood become the central issue in what had been, until then, the Arab- Israeli conflict.
Gingrich was attacked from many quarters, among them the New York Times, where foreign-affairs columnist H. D. S. Greenway acknowledged that the former Speaker “is right that there has never been a state called Palestine” and that “Palestinian nationalism grew up as a mirror image of Israeli nationalism.” So what’s the problem? Greenway charges that Gingrich intended to “imply that the Palestinians are not worthy of a country of their own.”
Gingrich insists he meant no such thing. Anyone familiar with his thinking would not doubt that. After all, Americans are an invented people. Can you imagine Gingrich arguing that makes Americans less worthy of nationhood than, say, the Japanese?
Like most of us, Gingrich favors a two-state solution similar to the one the Palestinians were offered in 1948 and at Camp David in 2000. In these and other instances, the Palestinians said no. What does that imply? Perhaps that Palestinians — or at least those who lead them — are themselves insufficiently nationalistic.
Can't agree with you there (Land for Peace). Were it up to me (and, sadly it is not) Israel would unilaterally recognize Gaza as a nation and the west bank as another nation (3 state sollution). This would take away a lot of the Internation sympathy for those peoples (the belief that violence is justified as they have been denied a state of their own.) and the next time one of them so much as throws Israel a dirty look, Israel will be dealing with a State rather than a people and can respond accordingly. Also, having their States, the Arab Muslims of that region will have something to lose. That might help. I am under the impression, to some extent, this seems to be the plan, the way Israeli Jews have been unilaterally withdrawing from certain areas without matching concessios. It may all work out.
Israel will wake up one day. When that day comes the 'palestinians' willl get far better than they have ever hitherto given. They will come to know the aroused anger and righteous fury of free men. There will be no mercy given.
The world will bend to His will without regard to its evil designs.
Just as Pharaoh's punishment was issued from his own mouth, so will be their fate. The islamic reverie of Israel's destruction only predicates their own.
Many argue President Obama would prefer a one state solution (with that state not being Israel). Whether true or not, that outcome is unlikely to occur.
I believe current American strategic goal is to create a two state system but through flawed policy, serendipity and incompetence, American policy despite itself will likely ensure for the intermediate future (say 20 yrs or so) no Palestinian State and a stronger (not weaker) Israeli state.
Current foreign policy (and in fairness with some legacy effect from the previous one) Iran has grown significantly stronger. Although results of the current sanctions remain to be seen, the fact that we are out of Iraq negates significant impact. Iran will use Iraq as intermediary to get what it needs.
Saudi Arabia remains stable, Turkey is stronger and Egypt is no longer a staunch ally. Stability, predictability and future outcomes of satellite states Syria and Lebanon and proxies Hamas and Hezbollah are in flux.
The 3 major regional powers plus a not insignificant Saudi Arabia do not want to see any of the others become the regional hegemon. Sure they all would aspire to a Grand Caliphate but only as long as it’s their Caliphate. So while each would be perfectly happy to wipe away Israel, they would not want any of the others to do the wiping or fill the void. While admittedly making an exceedingly dangerous environment for Israel…what else is new. As long as there is parity between the 4 powers…Israel will remain a check and a convenient secret ally of Israel when necessary.
We only need to recall Jordan warning Israel of the impending 1967 attack as a historical analogy of the likely regional ‘way forward‘.
Even if there is no final solution Israel should prepare for it. Israel should declare that the whole area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is hers and use the Bible and the history of the Jewish people in the land of Israel for securing this right. Also, Israel should declare that it acknowledges the fact that there are other people, enemy population, who live in those regions and that Israel out of the goodness of her heart will allow them to continue living there under a demilitarized autonomy, nothing else.
From Israel point of view – if she wants to exist into the future – there is one and only one solution: Israel should annex the Jordan Valley and two wide corridors leading into it, the Jerusalem corridor and the Immanuel-Ariel corridor. The rest will be demilitarized and administered by the Palestinian Autonomy. Small Israeli settlements outside the annexed areas will either continue to function under IDF protection or relocate. The current Palestinian population in the annexed area will be given Israeli citizenship. The Palestinian autonomy according to this plan will comprise of four regions: The Beit-Lechem-Hebron region, the Ramallah region, the Jenin region and the Jericho region. These regions will interconnect using their own sovereign roads and tunnels, while connection with other countries and, especially Jordan and Gaza, will be through Israeli territory and under Israeli law. Israel should put barriers and mark the final borders as she see fit. Massive settlements should be quickly added in the annexed territories especially in the corridors and the Jordan Valley.
Unfortunately Mr. May, you, I, and anyone with an informed and fair mind, can talk til we are blue in the face and the media and academics will carry on with the same, wearied old propoganda. I wonder if any these old proles have wondered why the Egypitans and Jordanianas (and Lebanese before them) have built even higher and stronger walls around the Palistinians than the Israelis?
Posted earlier, not sure why it didn't show up. Basically, I wrote that I disagree with this columnists position of insisting Palestinians recognize Israel before getting their own country. Were I in charge of Israel, I'd unilaterally recognize Gaza as a country and the West Bank as a country, and hold them accountable for violence as nations. This would give them something to lose and would perhaps chill them out. Given the unilateral withdrawals we are seeing, I think somthing like this is happening.
Thanks to the PLO, itself, to use Newt Gingrich's extremely accurate terminology, a quasi-"invented" entity, the entire "peace process" is a ruse, an empty feint with no substance, meaning or future.
The Arabs have done everything in their power to obstruct any possible agreement with Israel. Deal killers thrown down by the Arabs include:
1) their insistence on right of return
2) their preconditioning negotiations on Israel withdrawing to pre-1967 borders
3) Abbas’ outright declaration that he will under no circumstance recognize a Jewish state.
Further, Abbas does not legitimately represent the entire Arab population of the disputed territories. He does not represent Gaza. The “unity” agreement reached between his Fatah and Hamas, which controls the Gaza, has fallen apart and means nothing. Thus, any peace brokered by him will have little validity and be unsustainable.
Continual pressure by the West, especially by the Obama administration, on Israel to negotiate with the “invented” “Palestinians” is not only totally unrealistic, but in fact reflects an institutionalized prejudice and bias against Israel, a transparent and foul ruse meant to appease the Arab world.
So? Anything new? We all know the real point of the Palestinian state movement is to further the Islamist agenda. This was either a result of a well run dry for the moment, or you just wanted to mention Gingrich.
At this point, what basis is there to conclude that the creation of an Arab Palestian state would bring about a "solution" to Arab-Israeli disputes? And by what standards does any people (whether invented or not) "deserve" a state? I am unaware of such standards, but I would think that a people fanatically devoted to jihad shouldn't qualify under any standard. Does anyone contend that the Taliban "deserve" a state? If not, why Hamas or the PLO?
It's befuddling that in a piece concerned with the two-state solution based on the Oslo parameters, there is zero mention of Israeli settlements. Since 1993, the amount of settlers has more than doubled, and though there might be legitimite qualms with how this is defined under international law, every American presidential administration since at least President Carter (including Reagan and Bush 1 and 2) has called the settlement enterprise illegal. Moreover, it is not as a matter of historical record correct to suggest that Palestinians have not accepted Israel. They have done so, in 1988, which was the basis for the PLOs acceptance by both the United States and Israel as the sole legitimiate representative body of the Palestinian people (Hamas, by the way, is not a member of that body which is the only legally authorized interlocutor for any final status negotiations). The point here is not to denigrate Israel or its legitimate place in the world of nations, nor is it to whitewash the complicity that the Palestinians have also had in the faltered peace process, but merely to suggest that the above narrative is lacking in some significant areas. Whether we might like or not, true peace would first require a basic stock-taking of these (and other) basic facts.
Thanks to the PLO, itself, to use Newt Gingrich's extremely accurate terminology, a quasi-"invented" entity, the entire "peace process" is a ruse, an empty feint with no substance, meaning or future.
The Arabs have done everything in their power to obstruct any possible agreement with Israel. Deal killers thrown down by the Arabs include:
1) their insistence on right of return
2) their preconditioning negotiations on Israel withdrawing to pre-1967 borders
3) Abbas’ outright declaration that he will under no circumstance recognize a Jewish state.
Further, Abbas does not legitimately represent the entire Arab population of the disputed territories. He does not represent Gaza. The “unity” agreement reached between his Fatah and Hamas, which controls the Gaza, has fallen apart and means nothing. Thus, any peace brokered by him will have little validity and be unsustainable.
Continual pressure by the West, especially by the Obama administration, on Israel to negotiate with the “invented” “Palestinians” is not only totally unrealistic, but in fact reflects an institutionalized prejudice and bias against Israel, a transparent and foul ruse meant to appease the Arab world.
I don't think a two state, one Israel, one Arab, will ever work. The vast majority of Arabs simply don't want Israel. Period.
Israel would be interested in tolerating a second state for peace, but the Arabs really don't want peace. They want Israel gone. If they had the ability Israel would be gone already. I don't see any major Arab figure truly wanting a two state solution, they may speak of supporting it, but in their hearts, they want Israel gone.
It's near impossible to negotiate with someone that doesn't even believe you have a right to exist. Its nearly like negotiating with Hitler. He talked out of weakness but once he had the chance killed you.
Frankly there are plenty of Arabs states. Its not Israel's fault that the other Arab states refuse to take in Arabs that don't want to live in Israel. They could have taken them all in 45 years ago instead of leaving them in "refugee camps" and they would be a full part of those nations.
The Arab's that didn't flee Israel are a full part of Israel. They are full Israeli citizens, even members of Knesset (the government of Israel). Staying saved those families a ton of trouble.
Israel exists, and it won't be going anywhere anytime soon. I wish that Arabs would grow up and come to the reality that Israel isn't going anywhere and there is nothing they can do (or should do) about it. Trying to "pretend" that Israel doesn't exist or it should be driven into the sea is totally unworkable and frankly ridiculous.
It should also be noted that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Frankly the Arabs need to copy Israel more rather then trying to destroy it.
This article conveniently ignores the fact that the Israeli state is the most artificial piece of statecraft seen in the world for a very long time. By what tradition, other than in texts whose ink has been dry for over a millennium, does the Israeli state have any legitimacy. Why should the Palestinian people, who have been living there for centuries have to accept solutions dictated to them by outside forces seeking to divide land they have known for generations into two artificial states?
The entire region is a mess, a mess that the Western world has done much to make worse, and it is about time that we stop thinking that we can solve its problems by simply dictating solutions to it from on high. If there is to be peace in the Middle East, that peace cannot be made in Oslo, or New York, or in Camp David, but must emerge from the daily interactions of individuals who live there. Yes, we in the United States may prefer the peace to take another form, but who are we to interfere with the region, to disturb the lives of people half the world away thinking that we know better then them?
There is a reason the Middle East is furious at us, there is a reason why the American flag, side by side with that of Israel, is burned in public squares in that region. The reason is not that we are Christian, or Western, or whatever else, it is because men like Newt Gingrich and Clifford D. May think that they can engineer peace there. However, all we are doing is upsetting all of the social forces there as they head towards equilibrium and by doing so we are angering an entire region. Instead, we should just let those in the Middle East handle their own affairs just as we would like to do so for ourselves. Is that not just common courtesy?
This is historically and logically quite wrongheaded. There has always been a Jewish presence in what is now the State of Israel. Many of the so-called Palestinians moved into land made inhabitable by Jewish settlers; they had not been there "for centuries." If Israel, the only democratic, reasonably sane and humane, nation in the region, were to disappear tomorrow, Americans, along with all Jews, would *still* be hated by unappeasable lunatics.
"Greenway charges that Gingrich intended to “imply that the Palestinians are not worthy of a country of their own.”" - We who grew up in the Soviet Union know this method of besmirching somebody through insinuations and appeal to the readers' feelings ("not worthy") if attacking his or her facts presents a problem. If you can't say Gingrich is lying, then say he's a horribly mean - perhaps even homicidal - person.
If it were only two states involved I could be in favor if the arabs were really intent on making peace and not just advancing the line towards Israel from which to launch further genocidal attacks. The two states would be Jordan (a majority "palestinian" community) and Israel as no other legal entities ever had claims to the disputed territories. However what the arabs seek is not two state solution but a four or five state solution for the arabs from which they would launch their Final Solution of their "Jewish Problem".
The push by the Palestinians, for a state of their own, has been about only one thing. The establishment of a base to launch the final attack that will destroy the state of Israel. The idea of a two state solution is a delusion.
