Are the Palestinians an "Invented People?"

Top-tier Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently caused controversy--mostly outside of the GOP--by stating that the Palestinians were an "invented people." He said this in an interview with a New York cable television channel, Jewish TV, that as the name implies is geared towards Jews. He also referred to the Palestinians as terrorists. Gingrich understands the Palestinians as "invented" i.e. phony because in the past they merely called themselves Arabs. In this he is correct. But this is not unique in the Middle East. The area was until the end of World War I part of the Ottoman Empire and the inhabitants of the Levant thought of themselves as Ottomans, Muslims, and Arabs (or Jews or Kurds or Turkomans). Until the end of World War II the Union of Reform Synagogues, then the largest Jewish denomination in America, insisted that the Jews were not a people but only a religion. (I couldn't provide a link to this because it is something that Reform Jews are ashamed of today, but read any standard history of the denomination and it is found.) This sentiment was shared by the vast majority of Orthodox rabbis in Europe and even Palestine at the time. It was mainly secular Jews who were Zionists. They reached back two millennia in time to a time when ordinary Jews spoke Hebrew (or at least Aramaic), lived in Eretz Israel, and regarded themselves as a nation. Are the Jews an invented people as well?

Actually all peoples are "invented." That is to say nationalism is a business or process of selection of bits of culture, history and even language to create a common national identity. In Yugoslavia it involved selecting a particular dialect to become the basis of Serbo-Croatian that was then taught in the schools for both Croats and Serbs. After the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s the opposite process occurred and the Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) all infused their new "languages" with different words to differentiate them. The easiest job in the world was to be an inter-Yugoslav translator or interpreter. Select episodes in history are emphasized and heroes who are useful at the time are set up as exemplars for the population. Needless to say many of the German heroes from the Nazi period are no longer taught in schools as German heroes. 

But none of this is really important to Gingrich, the man who continually reinvents himself. He knows that pro-Israel anti-Arab rhetoric is red meat to Republican audiences. If he is someday elected president and decides to deal with the Middle East diplomatically he can always use the Foreign Service to explain what he really meant (or to explain to the Arab rulers that it was all political rhetoric, which they should understand without too much of a problem). Here is why Evangelical Protestant conservatives have replaced American Jews as Israel's main American constituency. And here is what that may mean for Israel down the road. And here is a post from one of the HaAretz blogs on what the problems with Gingrich's claim are.

The CNN National Security Debate

I just finished watching the CNN-Heritage Foundation National Security Debate, the second foreign policy debate so far in this election cycle. I was most interested in seeing how the front runners performed: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. I thought that Romney outperformed his chief rival. Romney was cautious and played not to make any major errors as well as getting in subtle digs at his opponents. Newt was busy showing off and showing how smart he was--which left him open for attack from Michelle Bachmann and others for supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants. Romney said he was opposed to creating magnets for illegal immigration and he specifically mentioned in-state tuition rates for illegals. This was a subtle dig at Rick Perry.

Bachmann and Rick Santorum again had their moments as in the first foreign policy debate in SC about ten days ago. But neither has much chance of winning the nomination if polls are anything to go by. Huntsman also sounded intelligent, but he also is not going anywhere. Herman Cain sounded as ignorant as ever. In fact he sounds like a black male version of Sarah Palin--winging it and hoping to cover up his ignorance by his fervor.

Ron Paul is beginning to wear on me. He repeats the same things every time. His libertarian approach to foreign policy has some ideological appeal, but his claim that the Taliban just want to be left alone is a vast distortion of the historical record. The Taliban leadership invited Al-Qaeda into their country in the expectation that Bin-Ladin would attempt to carry out terrorist attacks against the West. Paul is just beginning to sound like Dennis Kusinich--he even looks like a taller version of him.

Go here for a very good critique of the debate looking at what was not asked. The article also ridicules Romney's pompous assures about keeping American military primacy and stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon's capability. As Pakistan demonstrated during the Reagan administration and North Korea demonstrated during the Clinton administration, if a country wants the bomb badly enough and is willing to pay the peace, it will get the bomb. Only Huntsman was willing to risk electoral oblivion to make this rather obvious point.

I look forward to the days after the South Carolina primary when the field begins to really thin out and it will be possible to only have three or four candidates up on the stage instead of eight, so that a real debate can be staged in which the candidates will have the opportunity of interacting with one another. In the past this occurred after the New Hampshire debate, but with the Republicans copying the Democrats and awarding delegates by percentage it will take the field longer to thin out this year.

The CBS-National Journal Foreign Policy Debate

Just some random thoughts from watching the Republican foreign policy debate:


1) The most intelligent remarks are coming from the bottom-tier candidates such as Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul,  and occasionally Michelle Bachmann.

2) The top level candidates seem to be posturing to the crowd, especially Mitt Romney and Herman Cain.

3) Herman Cain denied that waterboarding is not torture but merely an enhanced interrogation technique. What are the odds that within 48 hours he will be claiming that he was just kidding or that he was misunderstood?


4) Rick Perry has used self-deprecating humor to some effect with a couple of references to his debate performance two days previously when he forgot the Dept. of Energy. But in terms of substance he is in the same league with Romney and Cain.


5)  Gingrich is much more articulate than either Cain or Romney, his first-tier competitors.

6) Michelle Bachmann used a question about cost-cutting in the military to grandstand about Obamacare.

7) Cain tries to either sound intelligent or gain time by rephrasing questions. And his fallback default answer is that he will consult the generals.  But he sounds like he obviously prepared for the debate.

8) The debate will probably do very little if anything to change the dynamics of the race. Huntsman, Santorum and Paul will still remain in the bottom tier. Cain's future will be determined by how caucus-goers in Iowa react to the sexual harassment scandal and by whom they tend to believe, and Romney will continue to coast while Gingrich continues to rise until he self destructs.