Facebook
Twitter
Ten Miles Square
Blog
…and it doesn’t matter.
Thoughtful voices across the political spectrum and the world have rightfully been attacking Gingrich for calling the Palestinians an “invented people.” But let’s be clear on what Gingrich is wrong about.
You don’t need Gingrich to tell you that the idea of a “Palestinian people” is relatively new. All you need is the foremost historian of the idea, Columbia’s Rashid Khalidi, to confirm it. In his (very good) book Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Khalidi puts the crystallization of the idea slightly after 1908, the year of the Young Turk revolt in Istanbul. That event, Khalidi argues, catalyzed the Arabs in what is now known as Palestine to reconsider their allegiance to Ottoman Sultan (also the holder of the Caliphate), and begin to think in more nationalistic terms. (For Khalidi, this timing is important because it allows him to argue that Palestinian Identity did not arise simply as a reaction to the Balfour Declaration and the beginnings of mass Jewish migration).
And you know what? It’s irrelevant as a political or a moral matter. Millions of Palestinians now sincerely and deeply see themselves as Palestinians. It genuinely forms part of their identity. It’s not a pose. To tell them that they are all living under some form of mass false consciousness and that thus they have no claim to national rights is profoundly unethical. Gingrich converted to Roman Catholicism just a few years ago, in order to marry his third wife. (Insert joke here). No one would dare say that Gingrich’s newfound religion is fake because it is new or because he “invented” it himself. (They might say that it is false because the man is a massive hypocrite and fraud, but that’s not about timing: that’s about Gingrich).
Before the middle of the 19th century, virtually no Jews were Zionists. No one seriously entertained the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, least of all Jews themselves. You can’t divorce Zionism from the rise of nationalism in the 19th century. One could easily argue that a majority of global Jewry before the Second World War were not Zionist. Does that mean that it is “invented”? Well, maybe, but the point is irrelevant: it is real. It is true. It is authentic, and it doesn’t matter when it arose.
In 1782, Thomas Jefferson could call Virginia his “country,” and only a few people in what were formerly the American colonies would have identified themselves nationally as Americans. So that’s invented, too. Are we happy now?
All identities are, as Benedict Anderson so clearly pointed out, “imagined.” These identities are all culturally constructed and none of them is in the least illegitimate because of that. To properly judge the legitimacy of someone’s identity, we might ask other questions, such as whether they accept others’ definitions of their own identities, how they see their identities developing in the political sphere (i.e. do they want to establish free and just societies — I know, that’s a longer discussion), what are the basic values underlying their collective conception. But enough of this.
What is really wrong with Gingrich’s position isn’t that he is wrong, or even that he is telling a partial truth, but that he arrogates to himself the right to invent his own identity as well as the right to tell others that their identities are false. He is, in short, a bigoted elitist. But you knew that.
[Cross-posted at The Reality-Based Community]
royalblue_tom on December 13, 2011 12:31 PM:
Moses? God? I'm sure the bible has something about leading the Jews to the promised land?
I might be worng though ;)
Texas Aggie on December 13, 2011 1:21 PM:
royal, you are indeed wrong. According to their legends, the Hebrews were led to the Promised Land, but then the ones who were the ancestors of modern Jews left when the Romans got sick of their bickering and kicked them out (∼70 CE). The ones with the intestinal fortitude to stay were the ancestors of today's Palestinians according to research done by an Israeli geneticist.
Observer on December 13, 2011 3:45 PM:
Herodotus (c. 490- 424 B.C.), writing a century or so before Alexander's conquest of the region in 333 B.C. refers to "the part of Syria, all the way to the border of Egypt, . . . known as Palestine." See The Histories, bk. 7, ch. 89. He describes it (id.) as occupied by "Phoenicians and. . . Palestinian Syrians." Elsewhere he repeatedly refers to "Palestinian Syria." Herodotus never once mentions the Jews, either in the context of Palestine or otherwise. There's a range of theories about that. A sampling can be found by searching on "Herodotus/Jews" and "Herodotus/ Palestine." It's not that Herodotus was uninterested in religion. See bk. 2, chs. 37-58 on the Egyptian deities and the importation of their cults into Greece.
Wyatt on December 13, 2011 3:51 PM:
Wow. This article is basically the opposite of the one two days ago about Newt's comment. 'You're right Newt, their identity is invented. So is yours, fatty' sounds so great, huh?
zandru on December 14, 2011 9:56 AM:
See Juan Cole
Earlier in the week, Dr. Juan Cole discussed in some detail the history of "Palestine":
http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/washington-actions-on-palestine-dont-differ-from-gingrichs-words.html
You'll have to read down a ways to get past the Gingrich dissection and commentary on DC's relationship with Israel, but Dr. Cole notes that the ancient Assyrians and Egyptians mentioned Palestine as a discrete political unit, and that recognition has persisted for the last several MILLENNIA.
Not "1908."
Milt on December 14, 2011 9:58 AM:
Two points. Categorization is an artificial means of grouping. Your categories may not be the same as mine. Social or cultural group names are an example of categorization. What historians and geographers call a group of people has nothing to do with reality. Second, Gingrich used the term �invented� to demean these people, to place them below their rightful place among societies. To argue whether he was right or wrong is pointless unless you determine why he did it.
Anonymous on December 14, 2011 2:22 PM:
kudo to Milt. historical facts are irrelevant here and it's all about labeling.
still, it's good to be educated about the actual history, though.
N.Wells on December 14, 2011 3:39 PM:
Yes, it is important that Americans and Israelis are also both "invented" peoples, but Gingrich is only interested in delegitimizing the Palestinian. In addition, if you tell a Palestinian that they have no right to their homeland because they are an "invented people", not a one of them is going to say, "You know, you are right, I never thought of it that way. No problem, then."
Whether Newt is technically right or not is beside the point. Newt is an historian the way an arsonist is a fireman.
Felonious Monk on December 14, 2011 4:23 PM:
If there's no such a thing as a "Palestinian people;" who exactly is it that the Israelis spend so much effort trying to control? How do they make the determination of who deserves full citizenship?
We as Americans hold certain Truths to be self evident, that people have a right to self-determination. Gingrich does not believe this, but then he makes "anti-colonialism" into a pejorative too.
freepatriot on December 14, 2011 5:25 PM:
newt is a piece of crap as a historian
England, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, India, Pakistan, these are all artificial inventions
and don't forget the biggest artificial invention of all, The Unitted States of America; invented in 1787 by words on a piece of paper
wanna bet that newt the historian doesn't wanna discuss that ???
crappy thinker, crappy historian, & crappy person
when will the repuglotards flush this bowl filler ???