Gingrich: Palestinians an ‘invented’ people

[konradv]

What the **** is "periods of national identity" supposed to mean? When was it an actual nation that could exclude the militaries of other nations from crossing it's borders?

Palestine had independent states in ancient times and during the Crusades.

Wrong. It was a different nation, and it was controlled by Christians or Jews in those times.

You said there have been no independent states in Palestine. Now you're changing the goalposts. Weren't there Arabs living in Palestine during the Crusades? Wouldn't they be Palestinians?

 

[bripat9643]

No, 1948 is not a deadline. It's an historical fact. It's the date Israel became a nation with official borders that issue passports and citizenship. There is no corresponding date for the nation of "Palestine" because it never happened.

That's the problem. Israel doesn't have official borders. It's never subscribed to the notion that it had any borders with Palestine. At most, there have been divisions based on the fact that here Jewish residency generally stops and Palestinian residency generally begins. But Israel has spend its history repeatedly crossing these "borders," and insisting it has the right to set up new settlements.

There is no Palestine. Not now, not ever. What you are calling "Palestine" is Israeli territory. Israel has sovereign control over it. Israel ultimately determines the laws there. Any so-called "government of Palestine" operates only at the sufferance of Israel. The so-called "borders" are a fiction. If Palestine were actually a nation, then Israel couldn't cross those "borders" with impunity.

BTW, Palestine issues its own passports to its citizens. So what's the difference between the two? They both have indeterminate, disputed borders, both issue passports to its citizens, both were recognized by the UN as having the right to exist, both have declared independence. I'm not seeing any difference.

The difference is that Israel is an actual nation, "Palestine" isn't.

No one enters or leaves "Palestine" without the permission of Israel, so those so-called "passports" are a fiction.

 

[konradv]

No, 1948 is not a deadline. It's an historical fact. It's the date Israel became a nation with official borders that issue passports and citizenship. There is no corresponding date for the nation of "Palestine" because it never happened.

That's the problem. Israel doesn't have official borders. It's never subscribed to the notion that it had any borders with Palestine. At most, there have been divisions based on the fact that here Jewish residency generally stops and Palestinian residency generally begins. But Israel has spend its history repeatedly crossing these "borders," and insisting it has the right to set up new settlements.

There is no Palestine. Not now, not ever. What you are calling "Palestine" is Israeli territory. Israel has sovereign control over it. Israel ultimately determines the laws there. Any so-called "government of Palestine" operates only at the sufferance of Israel. The so-called "borders" are a fiction. If Palestine were actually a nation, then Israel couldn't cross those "borders" with impunity.

BTW, Palestine issues its own passports to its citizens. So what's the difference between the two? They both have indeterminate, disputed borders, both issue passports to its citizens, both were recognized by the UN as having the right to exist, both have declared independence. I'm not seeing any difference.

The difference is that Israel is an actual nation, "Palestine" isn't.

No enters or leaves "Palestine" without the permission of Israel, so those so-called "passports" are a fiction.

I guess Poland wasn't a nation either then, Adolf.

 

[bripat9643]

That's the problem. Israel doesn't have official borders. It's never subscribed to the notion that it had any borders with Palestine. At most, there have been divisions based on the fact that here Jewish residency generally stops and Palestinian residency generally begins. But Israel has spend its history repeatedly crossing these "borders," and insisting it has the right to set up new settlements.

There is no Palestine. Not now, not ever. What you are calling "Palestine" is Israeli territory. Israel has sovereign control over it. Israel ultimately determines the laws there. Any so-called "government of Palestine" operates only at the sufferance of Israel. The so-called "borders" are a fiction. If Palestine were actually a nation, then Israel couldn't cross those "borders" with impunity.

BTW, Palestine issues its own passports to its citizens. So what's the difference between the two? They both have indeterminate, disputed borders, both issue passports to its citizens, both were recognized by the UN as having the right to exist, both have declared independence. I'm not seeing any difference.

The difference is that Israel is an actual nation, "Palestine" isn't.

No enters or leaves "Palestine" without the permission of Israel, so those so-called "passports" are a fiction.

I guess Poland wasn't a nation either then, Adolf.

An anti-Semite is calling me "Adolph?" What a hoot!

The world went to war when the Nazis crossed the Polish border. Who goes to war when Israel crosses the so-called "border" of Palestine?

 

[Vel]

Can a free state of Palestine support itself?

A free state? Yes, it could support itself on its own merits, obtain whatever help it might need from its allies, great its own prosperity, etc. The problem is that Palestine is not free. It is an occupied country, and the Israelis repeatedly trample on every attempt the Palestinians make for their own prosperity. Palestine has alot of area that produces olives. It's a valuable trade commodity. But when Israel burns your olive fields and maintains a naval blockade to prevent any trade that it hasn't already approved through its own channels, then it makes it impossible for Palestine to get much done.

Ok, if we accept the premise that Palestine could feed itself off of the fruits of olive trees, then let's move on to what it would take for that to happen. Let's determine first why Israel would impede the Palestinian agriculture efforts. Enlighten us if you will.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There is no Palestine. Not now, not ever.

Yes, there is. Just because the US doesn't recognize the state doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What you are calling "Palestine" is Israeli territory.

No, it's Palestinian territory.

Israel has sovereign control over it. Israel ultimately determines the laws there. Any so-called "government of Palestine" operates only at the sufferance of Israel.

All you're doing here is question begging. You're assuming that Palestine doesn't exist and that the whole place belongs to Israel, in order to avoid the fact that Israel is a foreign occupation force in Palestine.

The so-called "borders" are a fiction.

No they aren't. They are disputed. There is a difference. Even as Israel cited the UN partition plan in declaring its independence, it ignored, and continues to ignore, those borders. Every time it has claimed new borders, it has ignored them. It's impossible to reject the idea that there are borders between Israel and Palestine when Israel itself has declared borders over and over again. It just routinely ignores the borders it proclaims.

If Palestine were actually a nation, then Israel couldn't cross those "borders" with impunity.

Again, question begging. Israel invades Palestine, and you use that to claim that there is no border in the first place. This, of course, is counter to Israel's repeated actions through history to declare borders between itself and the Palestinians.

The difference is that Israel is an actual nation, "Palestine" isn't.

Yes it is. There is nothing that makes Israel a state, that does not also make Palestine a state.

No enters or leaves "Palestine" without the permission of Israel, so those so-called "passports" are a fiction.

Again, just because Israel has continually used its military against Palestinian sovereignty does not mean that Palestine doesn't exist. That would be like saying that Iraq does not exist, because the US maintains military control of the area.

BTW, look at how many Mexicans cross the US border with impunity. By your argument, the US border does cannot exist, and therefore the US is not a nation.

 

[konradv]

There is no Palestine. Not now, not ever. What you are calling "Palestine" is Israeli territory. Israel has sovereign control over it. Israel ultimately determines the laws there. Any so-called "government of Palestine" operates only at the sufferance of Israel. The so-called "borders" are a fiction. If Palestine were actually a nation, then Israel couldn't cross those "borders" with impunity.


The difference is that Israel is an actual nation, "Palestine" isn't.

No enters or leaves "Palestine" without the permission of Israel, so those so-called "passports" are a fiction.

I guess Poland wasn't a nation either then, Adolf.

An anti-Semite is calling me "Adolph?" What a hoot!

The world went to war when the Nazis crossed the Polish border. Who goes to war when Israel crosses the so-called "border" of Palestine?

They've had several wars. Please at least make an attempt to act like you know what you're talking about.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Ok, if we accept the premise that Palestine could feed itself off of the fruits of olive trees, then let's move on to what it would take for that to happen. Let's determine first why Israel would impede the Palestinian agriculture efforts. Enlighten us if you will.

Oh, I don't know. It could have something to do with ethnic tensions, a Zionist government policy that is intent on fulfilling the ancient biblical promise for all of Canaan to belong to Israel, a concerted effort to undermine the Palestinian people in hopes of forcing them to submit to Israel, etc.

 

[High_Gravity]

Ok, if we accept the premise that Palestine could feed itself off of the fruits of olive trees, then let's move on to what it would take for that to happen. Let's determine first why Israel would impede the Palestinian agriculture efforts. Enlighten us if you will.

Oh, I don't know. It could have something to do with ethnic tensions, a Zionist government policy that is intent on fulfilling the ancient biblical promise for all of Canaan to belong to Israel, a concerted effort to undermine the Palestinian people in hopes of forcing them to submit to Israel, etc.

None of that tells me how the Palestinians would sustain their own country if they were given their own country today.

 

[bripat9643]

They've had several wars. Please at least make an attempt to act like you know what you're talking about.

ROFL! Those wars had no connection with Israel crossing any imaginary "border" of Palestine. They were simply a naked attempt to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Furthermore, they failed. Israel still controls the territory you're attempting to call "Palestine." If we hadn't defeated the Nazis, then the nation of Poland would no longer exist. In fact, it doesn't exist in its pre-war form. It's a completely new nation that was created by the victorious powers.

 

[Inthemiddle]

None of that tells me how the Palestinians would sustain their own country if they were given their own country today.

First of all, it doesn't matter. It's not for us, or anyone else to say "Well, they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves without help, so we should just take it upon ourselves to dissolve their country."

Second, the region has sustained itself for thousands of years. There is this notion that Palestine cannot survive on its own, and that it should accordingly become one with Israel. I don't understand this bullshit. It's outright racist to presume that Palestinians cannot maintain their own country just because. It's completely unfounded. The main problems Palestine faces today are the fact that it is a land that has been ravaged by Israeli military campaigns for more than half a century. It's a war torn region. ANY country will suffer great hardships under such circumstances. Israel makes war against Palestine, and then people say "well look, things are bad for them, they must not be their own country." It's all predicated on an assumption that Israel is always right, everything they do is always right, and everything Palestine does is always wrong.

Palestine needs what every country needs, and that is peace. The only reason Israel has fared so well over the years is because the US has provided so much heavy aid to Israel, to include a hearty helping of military equipment.

 

[konradv]

They've had several wars. Please at least make an attempt to act like you know what you're talking about.

ROFL! Those wars had no connection with Israel crossing any imaginary "border" of Palestine. They were simply a naked attempt to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Furthermore, they failed. Israel still controls the territory you're attempting to call "Palestine." If we hadn't defeated the Nazis, then the nation of Poland would no longer exist. In fact, it doesn't exist in its pre-war form. It's a completely new nation that was created by the victorious powers.

You're changing the goalposts again. It was about crossing borders and then it's not. It's about whether the area ever had any independent states in the past and then it's not. You're just going to run us around in circles with crap until we get too tired to post, aren't you? The ONLY reason your ideas make ANY sense to you is because you aren't a Palestinian. If people from the next town walled you in and told where you could and couldn't travel, work and live, you'd have a little more understanding, I hope.

 

[High_Gravity]

None of that tells me how the Palestinians would sustain their own country if they were given their own country today.

First of all, it doesn't matter. It's not for us, or anyone else to say "Well, they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves without help, so we should just take it upon ourselves to dissolve their country."

Second, the region has sustained itself for thousands of years. There is this notion that Palestine cannot survive on its own, and that it should accordingly become one with Israel. I don't understand this bullshit. It's outright racist to presume that Palestinians cannot maintain their own country just because. It's completely unfounded. The main problems Palestine faces today are the fact that it is a land that has been ravaged by Israeli military campaigns for more than half a century. It's a war torn region. ANY country will suffer great hardships under such circumstances. Israel makes war against Palestine, and then people say "well look, things are bad for them, they must not be their own country." It's all predicated on an assumption that Israel is always right, everything they do is always right, and everything Palestine does is always wrong.

Palestine needs what every country needs, and that is peace. The only reason Israel has fared so well over the years is because the US has provided so much heavy aid to Israel, to include a hearty helping of military equipment.

Actually if Palestine is going to become a welfare state like many of the countries in Africa that rely completely on international aid and our money is going over there, we do have a right to be concerned. The Palestinians have been surviving off international aid and charity now for decades, that would suddenly just change overnight if they had their own country? and if they were able to sustain themselves for thousands of years like you say, why was the aid even necessary in the first place?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Actually if Palestine is going to become a welfare state like many of the countries in Africa that rely completely on international aid and our money is going over there, we do have a right to be concerned.

First of all, nobody said that the US has to give any foreign aid to anybody. Second, if we are concerned about Palestinians needing the aid, then we should stop sending aid to Israel too, especially military aid, because the needs of the Palestinians in that regard are a result of an Israel that has been inflated by the US, engaging in a long military campaign against Palestine. If we had never been involved in the first place things would have been much different and the two would have found peace by now, if for no other reason than the fact that they each side would have brought the other to the brink of extinction, and they would have had to resolve their differences.

The Palestinians have been surviving off international aid and charity now for decades

And that's no different than many other countries, as you've pointed out. Nevertheless, it's not for us to ignore their statehood because of this. Israel has survived off of US aid for decades too. Israel would never have been much of anything if not for US military aid.

that would suddenly just change overnight if they had their own country?

I haven't said that. I maintain that Palestine is a nation-state, regardless of the US recognizing it or not. And that any difficulty by the Palestinians to sustain themselves as a country cannot logically suffice as an argument that the region actually belongs to Israel, because the cause of such difficulties are Israel's continued military occupation and hostile actions against Palestine, to include interrupting Palestine's ability to trade, to farm, and to maintain a civil infrastructure.

and if they were able to sustain themselves for thousands of years like you say, why was the aid even necessary in the first place?

Again, because the entire region has been torn apart by continued military occupation and conflict from a foreign country.

 

[High_Gravity]

If we had never been involved in the first place things would have been much different and the two would have found peace by now

There is no way to know that for sure, putting the blame of the Israel/Palestine issue squarely on US shoulders is not fair and historically incorrect, we did not go over there and establish Israel as a Jewish state.

And that's no different than many other countries, as you've pointed out. Nevertheless, it's not for us to ignore their statehood because of this. Israel has survived off of US aid for decades too. Israel would never have been much of anything if not for US military aid.

The countries I'm talking about are burdens on the international community and produce nothing but poverty, misery and ethnnic strife, places like Somalia, the Congo, Zimbabwe and Yemen in the Middle East, Yemen is the perfect model for what a Palestinian state will probably look like if you want to be realistic.

I haven't said that. I maintain that Palestine is a nation-state, regardless of the US recognizing it or not. And that any difficulty by the Palestinians to sustain themselves as a country cannot logically suffice as an argument that the region actually belongs to Israel, because the cause of such difficulties are Israel's continued military occupation and hostile actions against Palestine, to include interrupting Palestine's ability to trade, to farm, and to maintain a civil infrastructure.

So if Israel left the Palestinians completely alone, everything would be peaches and cream?

 

[bripat9643]

They've had several wars. Please at least make an attempt to act like you know what you're talking about.

ROFL! Those wars had no connection with Israel crossing any imaginary "border" of Palestine. They were simply a naked attempt to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Furthermore, they failed. Israel still controls the territory you're attempting to call "Palestine." If we hadn't defeated the Nazis, then the nation of Poland would no longer exist. In fact, it doesn't exist in its pre-war form. It's a completely new nation that was created by the victorious powers.

You're changing the goalposts again. It was about crossing borders and then it's not. It's about whether the area ever had any independent states in the past and then it's not. You're just going to run us around in circles with crap until we get too tired to post, aren't you? The ONLY reason your ideas make ANY sense to you is because you aren't a Palestinian. If people from the next town walled you in and told where you could and couldn't travel, work and live, you'd have a little more understanding, I hope.

I'm not changing the goal posts. I'm simply correcting your deliberate misinterpretation of what said. According to no rational coherent understanding of the term is Palestine a country. You have admitted time and again that it doesn't have control over its own borders. That's pretty much the fundamental requirement for being a nation. "Palestine" is not sovereign over any square inch of the area it claims. You have admitted that multiple times.

The guy who claims to be Napoleon thinks his ideas make perfect sense. No one pays attention to the claims of lunatics, and all the people who claim Palestine is a nation are lunatics.

 

[Gadawg73]

Wrong. It was a different nation, and it was controlled by Christians or Jews in those times.

No. The Philistines had several city-states in the area. At times, they were vassals to Egypt, but largely were autonomous. When the Assyrians and Babylonians destroyed the Jewish kingdoms, the ancient Palestinians came to occupy the whole of Palestine, even though parts of the region may have been controlled by various empires at various times. Under Ottoman rule, the region was generally autonomous as the Ottomans maintained the millet system where local and regional groups ruled themselves and the Sultan was concerned with expanding the empire, not assimilating the peoples.

One mistake that so many people insist on making is to try to compare political circumstances of the past to geopolitics of today. Not all countries in ancient times were nation-states. And not all states were countries. And just because a region was "within" such and such empire did not erase the cultural, ethnic, or historical record of that country and people. Demanding 21st century contructs in B.C.E. times is an absurd exercise.

They were not Palestinians. They were various Arabs, Jews and camel jockeys.

 

[Inthemiddle]

They were not Palestinians. They were various Arabs, Jews and camel jockeys.

At last, you show that your entire position is predicated on racism. Go along, now.

 

[Vel]

Ok, if we accept the premise that Palestine could feed itself off of the fruits of olive trees, then let's move on to what it would take for that to happen. Let's determine first why Israel would impede the Palestinian agriculture efforts. Enlighten us if you will.

Oh, I don't know. It could have something to do with ethnic tensions, a Zionist government policy that is intent on fulfilling the ancient biblical promise for all of Canaan to belong to Israel, a concerted effort to undermine the Palestinian people in hopes of forcing them to submit to Israel, etc.

Do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that anytime Israel let's her guard down, someone from inside those "occupied" territories starts lobbing rockets or visiting other parts of Israel wearing bombs strapped to their chests?

Let's try dealing with reality. Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza by conquest when they were attacked by their Arab neighbors. The Arabs lost and as such lost the land. That has happened the world over since time began. Do you think if any of the Arab aggressors had held land in Israel in 1968 that they would have given it back? Why should Israel give back land that they won in battle?

 

[Dr Grump]

It doesn't matter when it was "invented." The fact remains that the United States is an actual country with a government and well defined borders. The country of Palestine never existed. It's a fiction.

There was no country called Israel until 1948..shrug....

Ignorant asshat...

That's right, fuckstick, but after 1948 it was an actual country. "Palestine," on the other hand, was never an actual country. No one was ever a citizen of Palestine. No one ever received a passport from the country of Palestine.

And so now there might be a Palestinian state....shrug

What were Israelis called before Israel? A people with no home? Moron....