I wasn't aware of any American form of violent irredentism.

Aren't we? Prior to the mid 18th century, the idea of a single American nation didn't exist. Our founding generation decided to forge a national identity. The Declaration of Independence is itself a Birth Certificate not just of a nation-state, but of a national people.

Otherwise, what difference is there between a Mexican or Canadian and an American? Only the idea of being an American.

Well "Macedonia" is also an invented nation and there were no ethnic "Macedonians" before WW1, but you don't see politicians say that in public.

Now watch the "handlers" and "media consultants" try to figure out the best way to simultaneously condemn Gingrich for racism, colonialism, and anti-Islamic hatred, while professing eternal support for Israel.

See, here's the thing. Eventually, some of the voting public are going to notice that favoring both sides simultaneously is not the best plan - because you get caught.
The voters who are not complete idiots or rabid anti-Semites are going to have to bite the bullet, and call it what it is: it's us (traditional small-d democratic principles, human rights, Western civilization based on the Greek model, tolerant of all peaceful religious and philosophical beliefs = most European nations and Israel), versus them (Shari'ia law above any secular authority, Islam dominant throughout the world, conversion, death or tribute the only choices for non-believers = "a 2 state solution", Palestine, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Taliban, and every Arab state).

Not sure which side you're on?
Let me simplify it for you: life or death?

I respect Daniel Pipes, and often agree with him. His is a needed voice.

But I can't agree with him (or with Mr. Gingrich) about the Palestinians being an "invented people."

This isn't true. Certainly not in any relevant sense. And asserting it accomplishes little except to inflame Palestinian resentment, which has scarcely been in short supply.

It's true that Palestinians are Arabs. But Arabs aren't fungible. They're not interchangeable. Moroccans and Iraqis are both Arabs, for example. But their cultures are very distinct, and Moroccan Arabic is virtually incomprehensible to an Iraqi (or, for that matter, to an Egyptian). Nobody would ever suggest that Britons, Australians, and Americans are so similar that a discontented resident of Perth should simply go home to New York or London -- and the differences between "Arabs" are considerably more substantial than those between English speakers.

Palestinian nationality may be relatively new -- the Ottoman Empire (which only collapsed in 1923) didn't exactly favor the flourishing of nationalistic sentiments among its subjects -- but it seems quite misleading to me to say it was "invented" (and certainly not as the result of some sort of propagandizing conspiracy). Palestinian identity was forged in the same nineteenth-century fires that fed the unification of Italy and Germany, the nationalistic music of Smetana and Dvorak, and, for that matter, the rise of Jewish nationalism (or "Zionism"). The famous "revolt in the desert" of Lawrence of Arabia was fueled by Arab nationalism, which neither Lawrence nor Anglo-French intrigue "invented."

Palestinians have developed a distinct sense of identity because they've had a separate experience, the most recent notable factor being the failure of the other Arabs (e.g., Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) to help them (as was dramatically illustrated by the disastrous Six-Day War of 1967). That identity isn't artificial. It's very real. Palestinians are, for example, scarcely tolerated in some of the Gulf states, which plainly shows that they're perceived as distinct from Gulf Arabs. And there is considerable social friction in Jordan between the old Jordanian families (often with Bedouin backgrounds) who dominate the government, the police, and the military, and Jordanians of Palestinian descent, who dominate business and have a large share of the private money. Old Jordanians recognize Palestinians by their names and even by certain linguistic habits. This is no "invention." It's real, and a source of serious concern to the Jordanian government. (It's very likely that King Abdullah didn't marry his Palestinian queen only because she's extraordinarily beautiful.)

Newt Gingrich vaunts himself as a historian and a truth-teller, but his confidence in his genius is misplaced. He's not a specialist in the Middle East. His remarks about the supposedly "invented" character of Palestinian identity were, at best, superficial. And they're absolutely not helpful.

Anyone notice how Romney say he'll call Bibi to see what Bibi wants him to do before doing anything in regard to our middle east foreign policy. Pipes is rejoicing!

Of course, Gingrich is not "absolutely correct." He said "WE have invented the Palestinian people." What a foolish claim! How anyone can say he is correct, especially "absolutely correct," is beyond me. Of course WE did NOT invent the Palestinian people.

The Palestinians have invented themselves, just like many groups have invented themselves over the years. They happen to be more recent. But Germany was invented, too, as were most countries, if you go back far enough.

Thanks for the detailed history lesson, Daniel. It'll be nice to put more - and quite a few - specifics behind the not-so-scholarly arguments I've made for years. I love summarizing months or years of someone else's research just so I can sound well-informed.

I also enjoyed reading the rarely-written phrase "The French conquered...".

ABC New Fact Check: "While  former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said in 1969 that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people,” it is not exactly a factual statement.
Scholars assert that a Palestinian national identity began to solidify in the 1890s when Arabs in the region now known as Palestine revolted against the Ottoman Empire. While the revolt was eventually crushed, the clans that banned together later reemerged as a relatively unified Palestinian people."