Marking 9/11

CAA's observances of the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 began much like that fateful day itself. It was a normal, pleasant, sunny September day in Washington begun with the usual morning routine and ablutions, followed by a fairly typical commute involving sluggish traffic and/or crowded Metrorail cars.

That day, as did today, a brand-spanking-new A-100 class had just commenced the day before at the Foreign Service Institute: the 169th today and the 104th back in 2001. So the not-particularly-cloistered hallways and common spaces, not to mention the over-burdened parking lot and cafeteria, at the Schultz Center were clogged with the shiny, smiling faces of the newly-annointed.

By the end of today's workday, reports from two of our Middle Eastern posts, in Libya and in Egypt, would bring news of angry mobs, damaged or looted buildings, and casualties.

Back on that fateful day, the trouble came much closer to home.

Even at this decade-plus remove, it is still difficult to put the 9/11 attacks into a bloodless, intellectual perspective. It's just too soon, the wounds are perhaps scabbed or scarred over but remain all too fresh.

So we remember our fallen, remember that many of them did not fall but had to jump to their deaths rather than burn alive, and are thankful for the many who survived. We remember the fire fighters and other first-responders, the police, the veterans-turned-private-citizens, and the passengers and crew of Flight 93 and while we mourn their loss we also celebrate their sacrifice and count ourself fortunate that such men and women yet live among us.

We also look at the last eleven years and marvel at the hundreds of thousands of American and allied soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and others who rallied to their colors and fought (and still fight) the wars their countries asked them to fight. CAA will take quiet (okay, sometimes not-so-quiet) pride in having once been among their number.

Are there lessons we should have learned from our experiences of the last 11 years? Almost certainly. But today the lesson that's over-shadowed my every interaction has been rage.

CAA isn't done being angry. While that's undoubtedly a huge personal failing on my part and something I should pray upon to Jesus most sincerely, it's not simply that I'm stuck somewhere between denial, grief, and acceptance. There's a bit more there that the subconscious is trying to get the intellect to comprehend.

America's enemies are still trying to hurt, humiliate, and if they can manage it, kill us. That much is clear.

What's also clear is that our enemies have a really hard time managing that anywhere close to our home shores and cities. Our enemies best efforts seem to be possible only in those places where we're trying to make nice with Janus-faced local government whose most impressive accomplishments seem to be their marvelously exact calculation of just how much mayhem they can plausibly get away with perpetrating against us.

CAA reads the news every day and wonders how anyone not blindered by wishful thinking can imagine the war is over yet. That's yet another reason he's so angry today.

re: "The Poor Palestinians"

Ted Belman at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") considers the plight of the Palestinians without irony or insult.

Money quote(s):

""Palestinian" is a name given to Arabs after the '67 War, who lived or did live in the area known as Palestine during the Palestine Mandate and afterwards right up to the present, and includes their descendants, even if such descendants never set foot in the area known as Palestine."

Oddly, the name "Palestinian" as used after the '67 War, excludes all non-Arab inhabitants of the same geographic area, most notably (but not solely) the Israelis to whom it previously had applied to exclusively.

"United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is a relief and human development agency, providing education, health care, social services and emergency aid to 5 million Palestine refugees living in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, as well as in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. UNRWA was specifically created to maintain the refugee status, not to end it." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"The Arab League has instructed its members to deny citizenship to Palestinian Arab refugees (or their descendants) "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland." "

Fortunately, implementation of this instruction has not been universal.

"In Jordan, less than 20% of the refugees live in camps. This is because when Jordan purported to annex the West Bank after the '48 War, it granted all the Palestinians living there and in Jordan proper, citizenship. After the '67 War in which Israel regained Judea and Samaria, many more Palestinians fled to Jordan and over the years since, many Palestinians from the West Bank emigrated there. It is estimated today that the number of Palestinians in Jordan total in excess of 5,000,000 of which only about 2 million are registered refugees. They constitute about ¾ of the total population of Jordan. Given this fact and the fact that the West Bank has approximately 1.5 million Palestinians, one might rightfully argue that Jordan is the Palestinian homeland." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Perhaps the Hashemite dynasty might ought consider re-branding itself as protectors of the Palestinian people.

(Or not.)

"The Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have the right to form a government and govern themselves within the confines of the Oslo Accords. Their government known as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has full autonomy in all matters save for a limitation on matters of security affecting Israel. How they govern themselves is up to them. In effect the Palestinians elect Palestinians to govern them. Whereas in Jordan, the Palestinians are severely underrepresented in the Chamber of Deputies where the minority Bedouin hold sway. If that weren't bad enough, all executive power is vested in the King.

It can safely be said that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are the authors of their own misfortune. In their past elections, they choose parties, whether Fatah or Hamas, that are wedded to the "resistance" which is a euphemism for terrorism. The result of this "resistance," whether in the form of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into civilian areas in Israel or the deployment of suicide bombers by Fatah in Jerusalem and Israel generally, Israel has placed restrictions on them such as a legal blockade of Gaza and travel restrictions in the West Bank. These restrictions are for security purposes only and not intended as punishment. Nevertheless, in the last three years, Israel has been easing these restrictions, and as a result, the Palestinian economy in the West Bank is experiencing an astounding 7% growth rate."

"(T)he Palestinians living in Jordan who have citizenship have no say in their present condition or in their destiny. Their fate is dependent on what the PA chooses to do yet they have no vote in PA elections. Nor do they have a say equivalent to their numbers in Jordan due to the gerrymandering above noted."

2/12

re: "Obama and Foreign Policy: Just Kidding"

Robert J. Avrech at Seraphic Secret examined the foreign affairs portfolio as the final year of presidential campaigning begins.

Money quote(s):

"The hard-left are unhappy because Obama has failed to close Gitmo, has not withdrawn fully from Iraq and Afghanistan, and has expanded George Bush’s excellent policy of assassinating jihadists by drone. The left, in a hissy fit, might stay home in November."

Fortunately (from their perspective), there are plenty of hot-button Leftist red-herrings, er, domestic issues that can be interjected into the campaign in an effort to a.) energize the Democratic base; and b.) attempt to split the Republican's various constituencies.

"Europe, a collection of welfare states, is melting; the Arab Spring is an Arab Winter; and China is building a such a formidable military machine that our Joint Chiefs are waking up in a cold sweat at four in the morning.

And of course Israel is being squeezed by the genocidal yearning Persians, the genocidal yearning Palestinians, and the Turks who have lots of experience with genocide having murdered 1 million Armenians in 1915.

(The Armenians are still waiting for the Turks to admit their guilt, apologize, and pay reparations. Good luck with that.)

American power and influence in the Middle East is negligible. Witness the Palestinian’s defiance of US policy in favor of the UN’s poisonous embrace." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

None of these items has improved particularly since being written.

9/20

re: "There Was Never a Country Called Palestine"

Jerrold L. Sobel at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") examined the historical question of Palestine in a quantitative fashion.

Money quote(s):

"There is no Palestinian land, plain and simple. If there were, when would it have been founded, and by whom? What would its borders have been, and what about the name of its capital? What would its major cities have been? What would have constituted the basis of its economy? What form of government would it have lived under?

Was Palestine ever recognized as an entity by another country? By whom? What was the language of the country called Palestine? What was Palestine's religion? What was the name of its currency? Since there is no such country today, what caused her demise?"

I got nothin'.

"Pose these same questions regarding Israel and Jewish connection to this land, and except for the willfully blind and delusional -- of which, admittedly, there are many, each can be factually answered.

At no time in history has there ever been a nation called Palestine. During the Ottoman Empire, which lasted from 1299-1922 CE, the land dubbed by the Romans as Palestine was controlled by the Turks; there was never an outcry for a Palestinian State then. During the illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria by the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan subsequent to the 1949 Armistice and prior to 1967, there was never talk of "occupied territory" or a Palestinian State."

Still, the list of "nations" which have never had their own states is not a particularly short one. A further question would be under what conditions may (or should) such groups acquire their own nation-state?

2/12

re: "Palestine, Back to the Future"

Ted Belman at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") sidestepped the issue of mythological nationhood and lunges for a solution.

Money quote(s):

"There was a time when the lands now known as Israel (including Judea and Samaria and Gaza) and Jordan were called "Palestine." In fact, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 declared that "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

There followed considerable cooperation between the Jews, represented by Chaim Weizmann, and the Arabs living in Mespotamia, now Iraq and Jordan, represented by Emir Feisal. As a result, the Feisal-Weizman Agreement was signed in January 1919, in which it was agreed that the Jews would get the lands lying west of the Jordan River watershed to the Mediterranean."

Fast forward to the end of World War I and Allied disposition of the Ottoman Empire's non-Turkish possessions.

"What remained was for the League of Nations to draw up the Palestine Mandate. Originally, the boundaries of Palestine included what is now Jordan, but a few months prior to the Palestine Mandate being passed by the League of Nations in September 1922, the Jews were told that they must consent to the removal of Jordan from the Jewish homeland if they wished the Mandate to be passed. And so they did, under duress."

Consider this slice one of a salami-slice strategy.

"Britain severed all lands lying east of the Jordan River from the Palestine Mandate and gave the lands to the Hashemites. It was first renamed Transjordan and then just Jordan."

So an Arab homeland was salami-sliced off of overall-Palestine, leaving a Jewish homeland.

(From which additional future Arab homelands may be sliced.)

"There followed many resolutions, wars, and peace processes, all designed to erode Jewish rights to the land described in the Palestine Mandate, and all to no avail. For all intents and purposes, the peace process is dead, and Abu Mazen, otherwise known as Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the PA, has refused to negotiate for the last three years.

This futile effort has resulted in a search for alternate solutions. Newt Gingrich went public with his newsworthy statement that "[w]e've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community." Gov Romney did him one better and said, "It's the Palestinians who don't want a two-state solution; they want to eliminate the State of Israel." Didn't they know that in our PC world, one is not supposed to declare that the emperor has no clothes? The fiction underlying the failed peace process is more important than the truth."

It's truly remarkable to see such prominent politicians depart from the popular narrative in this manner.

"The "Jordan is Palestine" solution has been mooted for decades. It is now gaining traction due in part to the Arab Spring, which began a year ago. Jordan now is feeling the tremors. The majority of Palestinian leaders in Jordan favor Jordan becoming a democratic/secular state. They have watched in dismay as similar forces in Egypt were overwhelmed by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists. They are determined not to share Egypt's fate. They are led by Mudar Zahran, the author of "Jordan's King and the Muslim Brotherhood: An Unholy Marriage." "

Consider that the majority of people in Jordan are indistinguishable from "Palestinian" Arabs in any appreciable fashion. And that's not counting the ones who are descended from those who left the Jewish homeland or the "Occupied Territories" of the West Bank and Gaza.

"The rationality and achievability of this solution need no elucidation. The solution itself needs only for the U.S. to get behind it. While such an initiative by the U.S. would be a departure from the position it has held since the founding of the State of Israel, it would not be a departure from her original position."

1/29

re: "Addendum on National Myths"

Joseph W. at Grim's Hall considered the necessity of the national myth.

Money quote(s):

"The highly successful (the Chinese have one of the most successful national myths in the world; and their beastly treatment of the Uighurs and Tibetans comes along with it), the once successful (for I can dimly remember a time when public schools in this country taught an American national myth, and I've read enough old things to know it was once very strong), and the decidedly troubled."

Consider the highly successful and millenia-long experiment in cultural imperialism, and assimilation, waged by the Han. It's truly remarkable.

(Although it's much harder to consider it dispassionately if you're the next target for assimilation.)

"(I)f I had to pick a single factor that really makes a recognizable "people," a national myth is that factor. A common language helps; a common government helps; a common religion helps; but it is the national myth (that may well be bound up with all these things) that really does the trick."

Calling something a myth doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue, per se, although the imputation is certainly there.

"Smith however concludes that the Palestinian myth is not "strong enough" because their leadership is unwilling to accept a limited state that coexists with its Israeli neighbors. But I think that is not a sign of the myth's weakness, but simply its character. For better or worse, and mainly for worse, the Palestinians have indeed become a people because they have got a national myth. It's just a barren and ugly one. It is of recent vintage - that is the kernel of truth in Mr. Gingrich's statement (which I used to agree with) - but that doesn't invalidate it. All national myths have got to start somewhere." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

These are indeed the key points to carry away from Mr W.'s analysis: the Palestinian national myth is a "barren and ugly" (indeed, it's genocidal) one; and, it's of very recent vintage.

"What makes our own myth remarkable is the way it rests on ideas and laws, more than any race or religion. The complaints that led to independence for certain grew out of the British constitution, and its common-law way of developing rights. Let colonists vote for the assemblies that tax them, as Britons vote for the Parliament that taxes them, and they'll pick up the idea that they have a right to it - not in the civil-law sense that someone formally granted it, but in the common-law way, that the unifying theory is to be discerned from the actual decisions made. And our myth certainly relies on the idea of these things as rights - yet is blessedly detached from any continued racial identity. Our national identity is not weakened if we admit that Anglo-Saxons can commit beastly atrocities - the document that started it all is filled with such accusations. More remarkably, if we admit that the ideas are noble, and the men who made them law were doing noble acts, we can admit much more wihtout weakening the myth at all - that they carried flaws with their nobility, as true heroes always do, and that Americans have done many awful things since by not living up to those ideas." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

1/3

re: "Debunking the Biggest Lie: "Palestinian" "

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") shared a scholarly essay on the topic.

(Footnotes and everything!)

12/12

re: "Reconsidering Newt"

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") is giving former-Speaker Gingrich a second look.

Money quote(s):

"Newt turned me around when he spoke candidly about the invented "Palestinian" people. It's true, of course, but everyone is scared of the savages, so the big lie is advanced in order to keep the peace (when in fact, all it does is keep the war). I was enormously disappointed in the entire field dumping on Gingrich for telling the truth about the Muslims in Gaza and Jewish terrirtories of Judea and Samaria (known by the Arafat construct of "Palestinians"). Gingrich said what everyone knew, that the emperor has no clothes."

Since Arafat ordered the murder of at least one U.S. ambassador, I'm just not able to give a lot of credence to this invention.

"I pricked up my ears when, a few months back, Gingrich said that he would pursue the prosecutions of the unindicted co-conspirators (CAIR, MSA, MAS, ICNA, ISNA, etc.) named in the largest terrorist funding trial, the Holy Land Foundation conviction. Is it any wonder that these Muslim Brotherhood groups are quaking in their jackboots?"

If you haven't read it already, have a look at Exhibit Elbarasse Search 3. of the Holy Land Foundation trial (USA v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development). Scroll down to page 15 to get to the English translation, past all the Arabic.

1/2

re: "Exposing the Palestinian Narrative Gingrich-Style"

Jennifer Hanin at Big Peace refutes criticism of Gingrich's Palestinian remarks by St. Thomas (Friedman) of Globalism.

Money quote(s):

"Gingrich delivered some bold comments about Palestinians being “invented people”. Low and below the belt? Absolutely not. Let’s be honest, Gingrich had the courage to refute the Palestinian narrative and tell the truth. History shows there has never been a “Palestinian people” and the notion of one only gained popularity around 1967 — nearly two decades after Jews re-inhabited their homeland of Judea and Samaria (now Israel) in 1948. More facts Friedman and Kuttab will likely ignore is that in 1947 the UN already par­ti­tioned the same land in question into two states: one Arab and one Jew­ish."

Facts not in dispute.

"Gingrich also knows historical evidence confirms Israel existed as nation as early as 1300 BCE, some two thousand years before Islam. Yet there has never been ANY evidence of a Pales­tin­ian nation. Simply put, if there is no historical evidence to separate Palestinians from Arabs then Palestinians ARE Arabs. The fact is there has never been an authentic Pales­tin­ian lan­guage, a dis­tinct Pales­tin­ian cul­ture, Palestinian currency (except while under British Mandate) or even land once ruled by Palestinians. These facts would give any historian pause, and it did with Gingrich, who used it as an opportunity to set the record straight. Gingrich had to address the Palestinian narrative head-on. For that he should be applauded not ridiculed."

One of the Palestinians interesting projects has been to systematically seek to destroy the archeological record of Jewish history in areas under their control.

"The only people being ignorant about whether Palestinians history is “real” versus “invented” are Palestinians and their supporters, including those keeping lies alive like Friedman and Kuttab. There is nothing racist about calling Palestinians Arabs."

Except, of course, for those Palestinians who are now called Israelis. They can be either Arabs or Jews.

"These self-proclaimed “Palestinians” upset about Gingrich’s comments are the same group that has repeatedly denounced the Oslo Accords and tried to make it null and void. They are also the same group that is responsible for launching a global boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) campaign against Israel, and an ongoing terror campaign that has blanketed the Jewish State with well over 12,000 missiles from Gaza. They are the same group that has refused making peace with seven Israeli administrations. The Oslo Accords, much like Camp David, came about with American intervention to end Arab (Palestinian) violence towards Israelis. It was an attempt to end the missiles and suicide bombings targeting Israelis while helping Arabs (Palestinians) lead more productive lives.

It’s palpable to notice how Friedman and Kuttab never mention the immense violence propagated by “Palestinians” against Israelis. Since 2000, 1,218 Israelis have been killed from Palestinian violence and terrorism."

And:

"Truth be told, Palestinians have engaged in erratic forms of ethnic cleansing against Jews and Israelis for decades. If their missiles were more precise and their bomb attempts didn’t experience occasional hiccups, Israelis would more to worry about.

Honestly, if displaced Arabs had called themselves Transjordanians instead of Palestinians the peacemaking strategy on the American side as ally would be no different. It must be noted that the 22 Arab countries in the region have done nothing to assist “Palestinians” in any way. By refusing to grant them citizenship, they have used them as pawns to continue the conflict."

None of them want the Palestinians out of the refugee camps and polluting their cities and cultures with the pathologies that have been inculcated into them for decades. And in an Arab zero-sum attitude culture, the last thing you do is invite additional competitors for jobs, benefits, &tc.

12/24

re: "Origins of the Palestinian Identity"

Dangerous Company at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") examined the roots of the Palestine question.

Money quote(s):

"No one denies that the Palestinians are a "people." The Israeli government, the United Nations, and the European Union have all recognized the Palestinians as a people with national aspirations.

The question is whether these aspirations evolved organically, or else they were inspired by greater influence from the former Soviet Union and late Arab republics."

It must seem odd, to those who came of age after the First Cold War (i.e., World War III) ended, to learn (or re-learn) just how much of the world's geopolitical landscape was formed (or re-formed) in the manner of an ice age's continent-wide glacial ice sheets, by the late, great Soviet Union and its proxies.

"(T)the Jordanian government remained firm in its position toward Palestine. For nearly thirty years, the West Bank was considered sovereign Jordanian territory. Jordan unilaterally annexed the land, granted all Arab residents citizenship, and conquered East Jerusalem. Unrecognized by the international community, but not challenged. Not the Arab League, the U.N., Israel, nor the Palestinians themselves considered the land "occupied" Palestinian territory. The Palestinian movement delegated all authority to the reigning Arab nations.

Beginning in the 1970s, the Palestinian leadership initiated a campaign to reframe the conflict and invent a local narrative. Riding on the coattails of globalized media, the Palestinians became a post-Soviet Union third-world victim. The alliances the Palestinians made with nations not interested in the creation of a unique Palestinian state were washed from history. Within the halls of the United Nations General Assembly, inflammatory rhetoric comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and South Africa became a defining activity of the organization. The U.N. General Assembly has since passed more resolutions against Israel than all other nations combined.

Though the Palestinian Authority no longer has to smuggle drugs, extort businesses, and engage in blatant theft to support their leaders' wealthy lifestyle, the manners remain the same."

Resistance, revolutionary, or independence movements have this pitfall they can fall into. To raise funds, they undertake illegal activities such as robbing banks (e.g., Stalin's 1907 Tiflis bank robbery), then graduate to protection rackets, smuggling (and not just guns and ammunition), drugs, and prostitution. This is the IRA's fragmented legacy today and it's how the Mafia got its start as well.

"It is easy to simply write off the Palestinians as an invented people, because as far as the facts are considered, their singular purpose is to act as force against Israel. There is no evidence to suggest that the Palestinian government is making meaningful, good-faith attempts to negotiate a state according to realistic conditions. And assuming that they actually did, the Palestinian Authority is so dysfunctional and fractured that any agreement with Israel could not possibly be enforced."

There are, in fact, at least two PAs, each sworn enemies of the other. So they've got that going for them.

"The argument should not be if the Palestinians are an "invented" people. The reality is that their representatives are descendants of terrorists, gangsters, and warlords. The Palestinians of today were never invented. Their identity has yet to be defined. The only defining feature of the Palestinian people is their singular purpose to destroy Israel.

Newt Gingrich should have clarified his views. He should have explained why the Palestinians are an "invented people." The image of the Palestinians is invented. It has been shaped, written, and carved by foreign benefactors. The Jews of Israel do not base their identity on opposition to non-Jewish self-determination. Place the state of Israel anywhere on planet Earth, and it would remain the same. But in the absence of Israel, the Palestinian identity would fall apart." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

12/23

re: "Newt Challenges the Myth of Palestinian Nationalism"

Bruce Thornton at Private Papers doesn't buy the prevailing myth of Palestinian nationhood.

Money quote(s):

"Newt Gingrich touched off a mini-firestorm when he told a Jewish television channel that the Palestinians are an “invented” people “who are in fact Arabs,” and “who were historically part of the Arab community.” This simple statement of historical fact was of course met with the usual bluster from the Palestinians, who called the statements “ignorant,” “despicable,” and of course “racist,” a meaningless charge. And what response from the Palestinians would be complete without the usual threat that the statement they don’t like will “increase the cycle of violence,” as Palestinian lead negotiator Saeb Erekat put it?

The truly “ignorant,” however, are those who have bought the “Palestinian homeland” propaganda. Where was all this talk about a homeland for the Palestinians in 1948, when the Arab armies invaded Israel? Their aim was not to create a Palestinian state, but rather to carve up the rest of British Mandatory Palestine, as the secretary-general of the Arab League, Abdel Rahman Azzam, confessed at the time: “Abdullah [ruler of Transjordan] was to swallow up the central hill regions of Palestine . . . The Egyptians would get the Negev. The Galilee would go to Syria, except that the coastal part as far as Acre would be added to the Lebanon.” Until 1967, the so-called “West Bank” was part of Jordan, but none of the Arab nations agitated for the creation of a Palestinian state. The “Palestinian homeland” became a tactical weapon after violence failed to achieve the real aim, the destruction of Israel."

This abortive land grab cannot fail to remind this historically-minded reader of Stalin's deal to split Poland with Hitler.

"Our failures in dealing with a dysfunctional Middle East in part result from a failure of imagination, our unwillingness to think beyond our own ideals and see beyond the duplicitous pretexts of our adversaries. The tactic of a “Palestinian homeland,” for example, exploits the Western ideal of the nation-state as forming the fundamental structure of a people and their collective identity. But nationalism is not an organic part of Islam, which recognizes no separation of church and state. A people are created by their adherence to Islam, by being members of the global umma or Muslim community. The PLO Charter makes this clear in Article 15: “The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation — peoples and governments — with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard.” Palestinian nationalism is an expression of Arab nationalism, in a way unimaginable for any Western country, for the simple reason that Arab nationalism is in fact another expression of universal Muslim identity."

Yes, but.

Much of "universal Muslim identity" is more accurately described as arabian cultural imperialism. Much of the reason the umma is not, in fact, universal is due to some parts of the Muslim military (and cultural) conquests being less digestible and dissolvable than others, notably Persia and the Berbers.

"National identity, then, means something very different to most Muslims from what it means to us. For most Muslims in the Middle East, being Muslim takes precedence over being an Egyptian, a Libyan, or a Palestinian."

Much of the Middle East, like much of the world outside of Western Europe (and the Anglosphere) is centuries behind us in the formation of a national consciousness. This is in part because they started the process of becoming nation-states later, but also because the forces driving that process are both weaker and opposed by countering forces (such as the umma).

12/15

re: "Palestinians are an Invented People"

Michael Curtis* at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") applies an historian's skills to the Palestinian question.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hatever one's views of the sagacity or judgment of Mr. Gingrich on other issues, or one's opinions on the more general issue of the desirability and character of a Palestinian state existing alongside the state of Israel, the accuracy of his statement cannot be denied.

The conclusion stems from two factors. One is that Arabs living in the area now known as Palestine were regarded, both historically and in contemporary times, not as a separate entity but as part of the general Arab people. This has been recognized by Arab spokesmen, by scholars, and by objective international official reports. The second is that no independent Palestinian state has ever existed, let alone one that manifested a "Palestinian identity." " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Until now, that is; the PA: for values of "independent" and "state."

"That "Arab nation" never included a state known as "Palestine." Indeed, the inhabitants of the general Palestinian area were subjects, not of an Arab nation, but of the Ottoman Empire which ruled the area and lasted from 1516 until the end of World War 1. This was the last generally recognized sovereign power in the area. The area of Palestine was a district of the Empire, officially a vilayet (province), not a political entity. No independent Palestinian state has ever been established, nor was there a single administrative or cultural unit of Palestinians. Arabs in the area were not different in any way from other Arabs in the Middle East area. . Nor was Israel established on the ashes of any state other than that of the Ottoman Empire.

The first official naming of "Palestine" as a distinct, defined territorial area came with the decision of the League of Nations , dealing with areas of the former Ottoman Empire, to create a Mandate for Palestine. This was accorded to Great Britain which ruled the area, from the Mediterranean Sea to west of the Jordan River, from 1922 until May 1948.

All people living in that area were regarded as "Palestinians" without any ethnic connotations. Ironically, the name was used not by Arabs but only by Jews in the area, as in The Palestinian (now the Jerusalem) Post, and the Palestine Symphony (now Israel Philharmonic) Orchestra. Only after the state of Israel was established in May 1948 did the term "Palestinian" become exclusively used in referring to Arabs in the area.

It is now clear that a concept of Palestinian identity and nationalism has emerged and become a political factor."

It's curious how the very word Palestine (and Palestinian) itself was co-opted from the Israelis as soon as they had finished with it.

"The essential problem is not simply a terminological one, a refusal to acknowledge that the category of Palestinian identity is a recent invention. Rather, the insistence on a presumed time honored right of a Palestinian people to the disputed land is being used as a weapon against the right of Israel to exist. Such an insistence is a handicap to a peaceful negotiated agreement between Palestinians and Israel."

12/13

* Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Rutgers University

re: "A badly invented people"

Robert at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") shares a long exerpt from an essay by Daniel Greenfield.

Money quote(s):

"the utter spuriousness and jihadist motivation of the Palestinian claim to nationality"

Mr. Greenfrield wrote:

"Aside from all the hysterical "sky is falling" nonsense, is the comparison between the Americans as an invented people and the Palestinian Arabs.

Let's look at how wrong this is and in how many ways. To begin with the American colonies did not demand their independence based on some spurious ancient history."

"Americans are not a self-invented people, they are a self-evolved people. The American revolution was a struggle between a colony and the mother country that ended in a break and the creation of a new
country that still used the language and much of the culture of the
mother country, but at the same time the colonies had been slowly evolving their own unique identity.

The "Palestinian" Arabs on the other hand are an invented people, and not even a self-invented people. That dubious honor fell to some comrades in Moscow and the Arab nations who found it convenient to have terrorist militias that could launch attacks across the border, supposedly on their own initiative, but in reality answering to them.

Their whole claim to a state is the bizarre insistence that they are the
region's original inhabitants who were driven out by the actual original inhabitants, the Jews. When they are actually the descendants of the Muslim conquerors who drove out or
subjugated the native inhabitants."

Yes. They're also the descendents of those other original inhabitants, Christian, Jewish, Pagan, who converted to Islam.

12/12

re: "Gingrich’s Fresh Hope"

Caroline Glick at Big Peace stuck up for former-Speaker Gingrich in the Jerusalem Post.

Money quote(s):

"(F)ormer speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, did something revolutionary. He told the truth about the Palestinians. In an interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich said that the Palestinians are an “invented” people, “who are in fact Arabs.”

His statement about the Palestinians was entirely accurate. At the end of 1920, the “Palestinian people” was artificially carved out of the Arab population of “Greater Syria.” “Greater Syria” included present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. That is, the Palestinian people were invented 91 years ago. Moreover, as Gingrich noted, the term “Palestinian people” only became widely accepted after 1977.

As Daniel Pipes chronicled in a 1989 article on the subject in The Middle East Quarterly, the local Arabs in what became Israel opted for a local nationalistic “Palestinian” identity in part due to their sense that their brethren in Syria were not sufficiently committed to the eradication of Zionism."

So the latest date is 1977, which would (in Western demographic terms) a generation ago, but in Middle Eastern terms is more like two generations. Long enough for the myth of national consciousness to become a reality.

(Which doesn't make Gingrich a liar.)

"In their view, Gingrich is an irresponsible flamethrower because he is turning his back on a 30- year bipartisan consensus. That consensus is based on ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are an artificial people whose identity sprang not from any shared historical experience, but from opposition to Jewish nationalism.

The policy goal of the consensus is to establish an independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River that will live at peace with Israel.

This policy was obsessively advanced throughout the 1990s until it failed completely in 2000, when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected then-prime minister Ehud Barak’s and then US president Bill Clinton’s offer of Palestinian statehood and began the Palestinian terror war against Israel.

BUT RATHER than acknowledge that the policy – and the embrace of Palestinian national identity at its heart – had failed, and consider other options, the US policy establishment in Washington clung to it for dear life. Republicans like Rubin’s mentor, former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, went on to support enthusiastically Israel’s surrender of Gaza in 2005, and to push for Hamas participation in the 2006 Palestinian elections. That withdrawal and those elections catapulted the jihadist terror group to power.

The consensus that Gingrich rejected by telling the truth about the artificial nature of Palestinian nationalism was based on an attempt to square popular support for Israel with the elite’s penchant for appeasement. On the one hand, due to overwhelming public support for a strong US alliance with Israel, most US policy-makers have not dared to abandon Israel as a US ally.

On the other hand, American policy-makers have been historically uncomfortable having to champion Israel to their anti-Israel European colleagues and to their Arab interlocutors who share the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist."

Being uncomfortable sometimes is just something that goes with the job. As fond as I am of Europeans, I don't expect that I'll always agree with them.

"Throughout the Arab world, Islamist forces are on the rise.

Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.

The US is no longer seen as a credible regional power as it pulls its forces out of Iraq without victory, hamstrings its forces in Afghanistan, dooming them to attrition and defeat, and abandons its allies in country after country."

This too shall pass.

"Both Rubin and Abrams, as well as Romney, justified their attacks on Gingrich and their defense of the failed consensus by noting that no Israeli leaders are saying what Gingrich said. Rubin went so far as to allege that Gingrich’s words of truth about the Palestinians hurt Israel.

This is of course absurd. What many Americans fail to recognize is that Israeli leaders are not as free to tell the truth about the nature of the conflict as American leaders are. Rather than look to Israel for leadership on this issue, American leaders would do well to view Israel as the equivalent of West Germany during the Cold War. With half of Berlin occupied by the Red Army and West Berlin serving as the tripwire for a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, West German leaders were not as free to tell the truth about the Soviet Union as American leaders were."

Interesting parallel that appeals to my inner Cold Warrior.

"When Romney criticized Gingrich’s statement as unhelpful to Israel, Gingrich replied, “I feel quite confident that an amazing number of Israelis found it nice to have an American tell the truth about the war they are in the middle of, and the casualties they are taking and the people around them who say, ‘They do not have a right to exist and we want to destroy them.’”

And he is absolutely right. It was more than nice. It was heartening."

Said (actually written) by an Israeli, writing for the Jerusalem Post. So I'm inclined to accept the sentiment as genuine.

12/12

re: "Caroline Glick: Newt’s comments “a cause for hope” "

William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection gleaned the best of Caroline Glick's commentary on criticism of former-Speaker Gingrich's remarks.

12/12

re: "On Gingrich, The Palestinians, And “Invented People”"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") considers the facts-in-the-minds-of-the-people-on-the-ground.

Money quote(s):

"Whether or not it is historically accurate to say that there was no such thing as the idea of a Palestinian nation prior to the early 20th Century is largely irrelevant. What matters is what the facts on the ground are right now, and right now there are some 4 million people in the West Bank and on the Gaza Strip who consider themselves part of a Palestinian nation. Ignoring that reality is impossible, and engaging in historical diversions about the Ottoman Empire, the Caliphite that preceded it, or the Roman Empire that once ruled Palestine is really quite pointless." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Can I get an "Amen!"?

Sure, prior to the XX cent. the "history" of the Palestinian people is pretty much fairy-tales (unless you're talking about the Jews, &tc.). But, deliberately or not, there's a very real sense of national consciousness there now, and that has to be accepted (and dealt with).

12/11

re: "Newt and the "Palestinians" "

Kepha at Uncle Cephas ("A blog devoted to an American's ramblings on religion, culture, and politics.") suggested a talking point.

Money quote(s):

"The time is long past due for the world to tell its Arabic-speaking portion that it needs to naturalize the Falastin Arab refugees and their descendants.

It ought to be a mandatory talking point for everyone in the US foreign policy community that there are roughly around 30,000 victims of an-Nakhbar and their descendants in the USA, and that these people carry US passports whenthey travel, may freely buy and sell real estate, vote in US elections, and even run for office. Yet in the whole of the Arab world from Iraq and the Gulf to Mauretania, only Jordan, the PA, and Israel itself give the Falastin Arabs real citizenship--and even the PA is thinking of denying it to those from pre-1967 Israel.

Yet the Arab states, which insit on keeping the Falastin Arabs stateless, dare to use them as an excuse to trash US embassies and demonize the USA in their government-controlled media (Egypt, the recipient of so much US aid, was notorious in this regard)."

Frankly, there's not much I'd add to that.

12/11

re: "Newt Gingrich Tells the Truth About the Palestinian Non-Entity"

Daniel Horowitz at RedState ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") provided more of the actual history of the Palestinians.

Money quote(s):

"Newt Gingrich hit it out of the park with his succinct assessment of the “Palestinian” cause.

One of the most incorrigible fallacies pertaining to the Middle East is the notion that the Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own. This fallacy stems from the misconception that there is a nation of ‘Palestinians’, and to the extent that such a nation exists, this name is an accurate representation of the Arabs who live in modern Israel. This artful manipulation of the geopolitical lexicon was meant to bestow upon a group of random Arabs a false sense of geographical ties to the Holy Land."

Part of the conceptual problem we Americans have springs from our Western European intellectual heritage, specifically that having to do with the Westphalian notion of the nation-state.

We would be better off, sometimes, to reflect upon our own distinctly American experiences having dealt with tribal peoples of sometimes dubious geographical provenance.

"This delusion is no trivial matter. For years, the left wing foreign policy establishment has rapturously promoted the ‘Palestinians’ as the cause célèbre of our national security interests. Instead of focusing on the real threats to our national security (such as those who, incidentally, fund the so-called Palestinians), the foreign policy establishment has singularly focused on creating a state for the most virulently anti-American people on the face of the planet. Their maniacal fixation on the Palestinians has left them devoid of solutions regarding the broader turmoil in the Middle East.

The first step in undoing this foreign policy mess is for the next president to deracinate the entire myth of a ‘Palestinian people’. Kudos to Newt Gingrich for finally telling the truth about the geopolitical cause célèbre of all the world’s imbeciles."

What complicates this perspective is that when a people of homogenous language and culture tell themselves and teach their children a national myth for multiple generations, the myth becomes the reality and the previously inchoate "Arabs" become "Palestinians."

"All students of history, barring those who attended left-wing universities, know that the origin of the term Palestine comes from the Roman Empire. When they captured Judea during the first century, the Romans renamed the Jewish kingdom ‘Palestine’ after the ancient Philistines referenced in the Bible. After the British kicked out the Ottoman Turks from Transjordan (comprised of modern-day Israel and Jordan), they renamed it the British Mandate of Palestine, once again hearkening back to its ancient etymology. Although the original Balfour Declaration called for a Jewish homeland in the entirety of this territory, 78% of it was ultimately siphoned off for the modern state of Jordan in 1946. Unsatisfied with 78% of the territory, Jordan invaded the new Jewish state of Israel in 1948 and illegally occupied half of the remaining 22% of the territory for 18 years.

In 1967, the Jordanians (not the so-called Palestinians), along with its Arab neighbors, invaded Israel once again in the hopes that they would wipe out the remaining Jewish presence. Israel won that war and kicked out the Jordanians from the land they illegally occupied, known as the West Bank. This land has nothing to do with a Palestinian people; it was illegally part of Jordan for 18 years. 80% of the so-called Palestinians are Jordanian Arabs. Hence, there already is a ‘Palestinian state’ in Jordan."

All true. But given the short 20-year generational cycle of the typical Middle Eastern family, two entire generations have grown to adulthood since 1967, passing on to their children (and grandchildren) their Palestinian nationality.

"(T)here are those who actually understand history, and intuitively reject the notion that we should invest our time and treasure into a lie."

Also true. And given the geographic fragmentation and political disfunction of the Palestinian people as they exist, there are better, closer, and more appreciative ratholes down which U.S. dollars can be poured.

"The Palestinians are the global warming climate change of geopolitical conflict. They use deceptive parlance to advance their agenda. Thankfully, Newt is speaking the truth, instead of worshiping at the altar of the pan-Islamists in the UN. Mitt Romney is accusing him of undercutting the Israelis, but Newt was wise to express the truth from the American perspective. There is no national interest for America in the creation of a state for a non-entity, irrespective of what the Israelis chose for their own interests." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA is unable to locate a distinctly American advantage for championing a Palestinian "statehood" against nominally friendly Israeli interests in the region.

(If the Israelis care to champion such, then they should bankroll it as well.)

12/10

re: "Newt Gingrich and the "Invented" Palestinian People"

Prof. Daniel Pipes at DanielPipes.Org ("the Internet's most accessed sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam") shares Prof. Gingrich's love of history.

Money quote(s):

"The former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and current Republican presidential candidate said yesterday that "there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab people, and they had the chance to go many places." "

Pretty much factual, although the last bit is a little questionable, given how many Palestinian Arabs have been marooned in U.N. refugee camps for generations, as a matter of policy.

"(H)e happens to be absolutely correct: no Arabic-speaking Muslims identified themselves as "Palestinian" until 1920, when, in rapid order this appellation and identity was adopted by the Muslim Arabs living in the British mandate of Palestine."

The thing about inventions is that, successful or unsuccesful, they don't ever get un-invented.





12/10

re: "Children"

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road ("where my shorter emissions will appear") is keeping tabs on broader trends.

Money quote(s):

"The Palestinian irredentists, as you're almost certainly aware, are demanding to be recognized as a nation-state by the United Nations. Their claim is hardly compatible with Westphalian criteria for statehood:

o Clear borders and the ability to maintain them militarily;

o The ability to maintain order within those borders, including the ability to suppress insurrections and avert civil war;

o Independence from external agents as regards domestic matters.

The absence of all three conditions from the autonomous zones along the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip hasn't slowed the Palestinian demand for recognition of state-sovereignty one little bit. They want it. They demand it. And for the other nations of the world to deny it to them is just not fair!

Mind you, the supposed president of this would-be nation-state won't grant Israel's sovereignty. Indeed, he's said he'll never do so. I have little doubt that anyone in his position would say so. Palestinians are quick to murder anyone who dares concede the legitimacy of Israel. Certainly no one who maintains it openly could rise to the top of their society. Yet Israel is a sovereign state by Westphalian criteria, and one of the most advanced nations in the world, at that. " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

CAA bows to none in his appreciation, even reverence, for the extraordinary civilizational artifact that is the Westphalian nation-state system. Yet, from its beginning, it has incorporated exceptions, some of which persist to this day.

"(T)he Greeks, whose country will collapse entirely without an infusion of cash from other European Union states, are unhappy about the terms of the deal the Eurozone central bank has concocted for them. It involves "going on austerity," a deadly phrase in European politics. The exact dimensions of that "austerity" are unknown to me, but they're probably pretty savage: you know, forty-hour work weeks and no retirement until age 62."

The horror. The horror.

CAA has a few Amcit relatives residing within the greater Athenian metropolitan area, including one whose recent retirement was greatly in advance of her sixtieth birthday.

It should be noted, to be fair, that although she retired more than two years ago, she has yet to begin receiving her promised retirement pay.

Where do you even start to fix a country like that?

11/2