“How is anyone supposed to take this nonsense seriously?”

Sultan Knish is making lots of sense as to the reaction to Gingrich and his invented people comments:

Arafat_yasserIn the post-news environment, media no longer exists to report, it exists to disseminate glib talking points that sound good at first, but don’t stand up to examination. Fact checks, one of the latest media gimmicks, have become another vector for disseminating talking points. So have media blogs which began repeating the same ridiculous thing over and over again.

Take the response to Gingrich’s accurate statement that the Palestinian Arabs are an invented people. 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. If they had then Washington would have dressed himself up as an Indian and instead of the United States of America, there would have been the Indian States of Iroquisville.  

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. It’s as if George Washington had not only put on an Indian costume but began claiming that his ancestors were there for thousands of years before the Cherokees drove them out. 

Palestinian identity is just so much gibberish. The official definition of that identity encompasses only those parts of the Palestine Mandate which Israel holds today.

The people who live on the parts of the Palestine Mandate that were turned into the Kingdom of Jordan in 1921 are not Palestinians. There is no call to incorporate them into a Palestinian state. The people who lived in the parts of Israel that were captured by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 weren’t Palestinians, and there was no call to turn the land that today comprises the so-called “Occupied Territories” into a state. But in 1967 when Israel liberated those areas– only then did they magically turn into Palestinians.

How is anyone supposed to take this nonsense seriously?

This bloody circus has been going on for way too long. Enough that the Arab states and the local clan leaders have managed to turn out generations of children committed to killing in the name of a mythical identity for a state that they don’t really want. The call for a Palestinian state was a cynical ploy for destroying Israel.

It’s why the negotiations never go anywhere, they’re not meant to go anywhere. The players aren’t free agents, they answer to their masters, and they can’t function without them. Hamas is running around like a chicken without a head, because it’s afraid of losing its Syrian backing. The Fatah leaders of the PA are even more incoherent, their ploy to threaten to unilaterally create a state has fizzled, and now they’re threatening to turn over rule to Israel if they don’t get what they want.

Self-government was the baseline for the American Revolution, but the Palestinian Authority can’t even manage that. Its budget consists of foreign aid. Its entire economy runs on money given to it by the rest of the world. It has an entire UN agency to cater to it. And despite being the biggest welfare state on the planet, it’s still completely incapable of taking care of itself.

Gingrich is right that the “Palestinians” are an invented people, but they’re a badly invented people. The Big Lie technique has turned their existence into an established fact, but the only basis for it is the repetition of the same lie. Orwell said that “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Gingrich’s statement was a revolutionary act and no matter how the media might pillory him for it, as long as people continue to challenge the universal deceit of the press, then the revolution can continue.

The entire piece needs to be read and passed around. 

It’s educational, substantive, historically accurate and logical.

Yesterday I asked for a plausible rebuttal to Gingrich’s statements and thus far, I’ve not seen anything that would resembles plausibility.  Instead, I’ve found hatred, derision and ridicule aimed at the man.  Some of it ridiculously obscene.

That really doesn’t say much for those who say Gingrich is wrong.  Actually, it does but not what they intend.

Consider yourself enlightened.

Carry on.

A cat inherited what?!!!
Mister Mormon Moneybags
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • jim_m

    From Daniel Pipes:

    When nationalism reached the Middle East from Europe, it captivated Middle Easterners as much as it did other peoples. The dream of governments embodying the spirit of their people was utterly alien, to be sure, but it excited many. The difficulty in the Middle East, as in most places, was exactly how to apply the national ideal. Where would the boundaries be placed? Did the Maronite Christians constitute a nation of their own? Did the Christians of the Levant? The Syrians? The Arabs? The Mus­lims? In the early years of this century, theorists took each of these peoples as the basis for grandiose plans for their favorite nation.

    But not a single writer imagined a Pales­tinian nation, and for good reason. Palestine had always been, and at that time remained, a Jewish and Christian concept, utterly for­eign to the Muslims. Eretz Yisrael and Terra Sancta have no analogue in Islam. Muslims look to the Hijaz, not Palestine, for their most sacred landmarks. Further, there has never been an independent state in Palestine ruled by Muslims; such states that were brought into existence were ruled either by Jews or Christians.

    Read the piece further and you will see that palestians considered themselves to be arabs and demanded unity with Syria.

    By the end of World War I in November 1918, however, the notion of a Syrian nation had made considerable headway among the Arabs of Palestine. They agreed almost unanimously on the existence of a Syrian nation. With few exceptions, they identified with the Syrian Arab government in Damascus, headed by Prince Faysal, a member of the Hashemite family. Palestinian enthusiasm for Pan-Syrian unity steadily increased through mid-1920.

    But as I have pointed out.  The left isn’t interested with facts.  The left does not recognize facts as being related to truth.  Truth to the left is that which advances their agenda and nothing else.

  • Anonymous

    “Its entire economy runs on money given to it by the rest of the
    world. It has an entire UN agency to cater to it. And despite being the
    biggest welfare state on the planet, it’s still completely incapable of
    taking care of itself.”Yep.  Sponging off the rest of the world since 1948.  But I’m sure Mrs Arafat thanks us daily for the luxurious life she and Arafat Jr live in Paris.Just think of all the money/lives we could have saved if we’d just shipped all the “Palestinians” to Paris with 10k in their pockets.

  • The “who was there first” argument is ridiculous anyway. Nations’ borders are not established on that basis. What matters is who is there now. Israel is a sovereign nation, and there is no reason that it should not continue as such.

  • retired.military

    “Instead, I’ve found hatred, derision and ridicule aimed at the man. Some of it ridiculously obscene.”

    Oh you must have seen Stephen’s comments.

  • herddog505

    The issue of who / what constitutes a nation has been a thorn in mankind’s side since the idea was first raised, mostly because not everybody agrees that they are part of somebody else’s nation, or happen to live on property claimed by somebody else.  (Witness the troubles in the Balkans all through the last century, if not longer).  “Self-determination” makes a fine and noble-sounding policy, but it’s much easier said than done.  It gets even worse when some group is used as a cat’s paw by another group / nation eager to pick a fight in order to (it hopes) get its hands on somebody else’s real estate, e.g. the Sudeten Germans ca. 1938.

    Further, there’s no standard test for nationhood: no residency requirement, genetic testing, etc. that will unquestionably identify a person as a member of this nation or that.  Even if there were, people might not WANT to be a member / resident of their official nation: witness quite a few Germans who, contrary to the claims of Schickelgruber and despite having been born in Germany to German parents and raised to speak German, were pretty adamant that they were NOT Germans but rather Americans (anybody want to take a whack at defining what makes the “American” people?).

    In the case of the Israeli / Palestinian issue, I side unequivocally with Israel.  For one thing, there’s no question but that the area has been a Jewish homeland since antiquity.  For another, the UN recognized that there were legitimate Jewish claims in the region and tried to form something like a Jewish state there.  We know what happened: the Arabs wouldn’t agree, tried to oust the Jews by military force, got their a**es kicked, and the state of Israel got the land as spoils of war.  Most importantly, Israel is a functioning nation state with laws, a government, a military, and a willing populace who all SAY that it’s their country. 

    Sorry, folks, but might makes right in this case… just as it does in our own country where there are other people who claim that the land is rightfully theirs, a claim that we are ready, willing and able to dispute with military force if need be.*


    (*) Normally, anyway.  Who knows with Barry, the Hildabeast and that lying, crooker f*ck Holder running the show?

    • HD505,

      I thought you posted a pretty reasoned counter response to Newt’s “invented people” comment yesterday.  You definitely have a much better grasp of the situation than Mr Gingrich, by far.  Maybe you could clue him in a bit about nationalism and national identity.  He needs it.

      But I do not agree with your “might makes right” argument today.  So, why does might make right in this case and not in all others?  If we go by that rule, then anyone who successfully invades a country and takes its territory should be the rightful owner.  Is that really the model we want to adopt here?

      The problem here is that in the case of Israel you say that they have a right to the territory because of 1) “the area has been a Jewish homeland since antiquity”; 2) The UN recognized they have claims to the land; and 3) because they took it and held it by military force.

      Many seem to agree that the Palestinians have some legit claims to this land as well–and you argued this yourself yesterday.  So that leaves us with the historical argument or the force argument.  You argued above that the Jews have a deeper historical tie, so they therefore are the rightful occupants.  But which is it?  Is the territory rightfully occupied by the Jews because of their historical ties, or because of your “might makes right” argument?  Because you really can’t have both here.

      If we stick with the might makes right rule, then we basically encourage more war to settle these kinds of territorial issues.  That’s just a bad road to head down if you ask me.  If deeper historical ties take precedence, then the Jews get Israel and basically everyone in the US needs to move out and give the place back to the Cherokee, Navajo, Chumash, and everyone else that was here way before any European ever arrived. 

      Yes, I am oversimplifying things for rhetorical purposes, but hopefully you get the point.  It is not as simple as many people want to make the situation.  The problem–and this is something you mentioned in your post yesterday–is that we basically have two groups of people who have some legit claims here.  And they aren’t exactly keen on working things out with one another.  Historical ties matter, absolutely (the Jews).  But so does a history of land tenure (Palestinians).  If tenure didn’t matter when it comes to determining claims to land, then no US citizen has a right to be on their lands today.  So of course tenure matters.  If people live in a place for generations, they can’t just be swept aside.  That’s not gonna work.  So in the Israeli/Pali case we have to look at these factors and also try to find a way to keep the fanatics (on whatever side) at bay.  But the “might makes right” rule only invites disaster in this particular case.  Just my take.

  • Anonymous

    So if I say you’re an “invented people,” I can take your land in the Jordan Valley, even though your family has had title to it for hundreds of years?  I can wall off your farm, so you don’t have access to it?  I can claim that your house does not have proper permits and bulldoze it, then let settlers from Russia build a house there?
    Again, what’s important is what’s in the interests of the United States, not Israel.  Israel could cut a deal next week, the PLO is ready and so is the rest of the Arab world.  The Arabs all know they are not going back to Haifa.

    But because Netanyahu’s government depends on 100,000 or so fanatic settlers who are stealing Arab land on the West Bank, the USA has to be continually embarrassed by its client state, which flouts every request we make not to expand settlements.  As General Petraeus said, this is getting Americans killed in the Middle East.  I hope he’s on the job now that he’s CIA director. 

    The Israelis are not “allies.”  Do they belong to NATO, like Turkey?  No.  Do they have a treaty of alliance with the USA?  No.

    What exactly have they done for the USA to be called “allies?”  I know we give them $5 billion a year or so.  So that should make them a client state.   In return? I remember the USS Liberty, Jonathan Pollard, other spies, and them selling secrets to the
    Sovs and the Chinese.

    Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama asked them, pretty please, to stop building settlements on the West Bank and they got the high hard one.

    So again, help me out on that one, how are the Israelis “allies?”

    • Anonymous

      “Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama asked them, pretty please, to stop building settlements on the West Bank and they got the high hard one.

      So again, help me out on that one, how are the Israelis “allies?”

      They hate ObamaCare as much as we do.


    • You are claiming “title” to property?  Such a concept requires a legal foundation of property rights, does it not? 

      You are speaking of property voluntarily abandoned so the massacre of Jews could commence without fear of harming any Arabs.  I understand you consider the massacre of Jews a worthy goal, but I fail to see any valid property claim in your argument.

      In fact, when you go bringing up the Liberty, it pretty well puts you in camp with the Aryan Nation.  But the Left was always close to the totalitarians on the right, wasn’t it?

      • Anonymous

        Well, what about the USS Liberty Veterans’ Association?  They keep bringing up the attack.  Are they Nazis?

        34 Americans were killed in that attack.

        This is what the Liberty veterans say about your bullshit.  It doesn’t fly anymore, you are either an American or a propagandist for a foreign country.  We know where you stand.

        Many of the individuals and groups who oppose our demand for an investigation and accounting of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty characterize our efforts as “anti-Semitism.” They refuse to offer facts in support of their argument that the attack was an accident. They refuse to deal with the facts we present. Rather, they simply dismiss us as “anti-Semites” and submit that they need do nothing more than this to establish their position. This is a cowardly evasion of the issue.The pro-Israel apologists shamelessly make these charges because they are unable to refute our arguments on the facts. Not having a factual basis for their position, they try to dismiss our arguments through ad hominem attacks that are false and disingenuous.
        Worse, these charges are made in bad faith for no reason other than to create a rationale for evading a discussion on the merits of the case. If they had persuasive facts to offer, they would. They haven’t. All they have offered are deliberate, demonstrable lies. . . . ..
        These anti-American apologists refuse to discuss the facts of the case. Instead, they rely on propaganda and charge anyone who questions the Israeli position with being anti Semitic.




        Again, the Israelis do what for the USA to justify the billions we give them and the hits we take internationally covering for them, exactly?

    • retired.military

      “Again, what’s important is what’s in the interests of the United States,”

      So you are saying do the opposite of whatever Obama wants to do.  Gotcha.

    • jim_m

      The Israelis are not “allies.”  Do they belong to NATO, like Turkey?  No.  Do they have a treaty of alliance with the USA?  No.

      So by that definition the British were not our allies in WWII, nor were they and the French our allies in WWI.

      What a bunch of crap.  You don’t need a formal treaty creating a bureaucratic structure to be allies.  Spoken like a true lefty, chica.

      Tune in next week when Chica tells us that the sky cannot be blue because there is not an official NOAA document declaring it so.

      • Anonymous

        What does Israel do for the USA to be counted as an ally?  All I see is that they take our money, spy on us, sell the secrets to Russia and China, and give the finger to four successive presidents who asked them to stop building settlements on the West Bank.  Does not sound like an ally to me.

        Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
        “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”


        • jim_m

          In 1981, U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Israeli Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon signed the Strategic Cooperation Agreement, establishing a framework for continued consultation and cooperation to enhance the national security of both countries. In November 1983, the two sides formed a Joint Political Military Group, which still meets twice a year, to implement most provisions of the MOU. Joint air and sea military exercises began in June 1984, and the United States has constructed facilities to stockpile military equipment in Israel.
          In 1987, the United States granted Israel the status of major non-NATO ally, enabling it to compete equally with NATO and other US allies for contracts and purchase advanced US weapons systems. Israel became the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in the world (see military aid below). In 1988, Reagan and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir signed a memorandum of understanding to formalize and perpetuate the work of the bilateral US-Israel military, security and economic working groups.

          Chico is a moron as he is obviously incapable if using google.

          • Anonymous

            Notice that the Israelis did not agree to do anything for the USA in that deal, it was all from US to them.

            Israel became the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in the world . . . . .

          • jim_m

            the Israeli port of Haifa is the main port of call in the eastern Mediterranean for the United States Sixth Fleet, and Israel provides other logistical and maintenance support for U.S. forces in the region. The two countries also share intelligence and maintain a joint anti-terrorist working group, and in April 2007 their air forces committed to share information about mutually relevant procurements.

            The United States has stored military equipment in Israel since the early 1990s and may store additional equipment in Israel when withdrawing from Iraq.

            Nope We getnothing from Israel,  Moron.

          • Anonymous

            You know, when people resort to schoolyard insults, I just ascribe that to the powerlessness I infer they must have in real life.  Like, y’know, the nerd in the cubicle who gets shit on all day and lashes out on the internet.

            So, that out of the way, let me get back to the topic. 

            U.S. Navy ships visit ports all over the Med.  The U.S. bases are in Greece (Souda Bay), Italy (Naples and Gaeta), Spain (Rota).  Haifa is just an occasional port visit, like those all over the Med.  There’s nothing special about that.

            As far as storing stocks in Israel, that is just a strategic reserve as far as the Israelis are concerned.  There is no real strategic reason for the USA to store weapons there now.  If the Israelis needed it like they did in 1973, they would use it.  Again, zero benefit to the USA. 

          • jim_m

            Chica, I don’t really care if you think that Israel gets the better of the alliance, no one ever said that this was an alliance of equals.

            You said that Israel was not an ally. I established that they are. Be an adult and admit that. Then if someone wants to debate about whether or not we should be allies our how that relationship should work you can do that. Otherwise you look silly refusing to concede the point.

          • Anonymous

             The difference between you and me, Jim, is that you take some official declaration that Israel is an “ally” as some kind of holy writ that settles the issue.

            For me, I consider the definition of “ally” implies some mutual and reciprocal benefit, which I do not see in the relationship between the USA and Israel, which is wholly one-way.

          • herddog505

            Anybody know what we were getting out of our alliance with NATO?  Were they keeping the Soviets out of… um… Maine?

            How about Japan?  Australia?  France?

            And if we’re supposed to give Israel a hearty “f*ck you” because they aren’t allies-allies (you know: they REAL thing, sort of like rape-rape), then what do we owe the Palis?

  • jim_m


    You have said over and over again that they are not an ally.  I just provided you with the evidence that there is an actual, on paper, alliance between the US and Israel and you cannot even admit that you were wrong on that score.

    Jeez, Chico, I didn’t realize that you had the same reading comprehension problems that Spongebob had.

    • Anonymous

      “Jeez, Chico, I didn’t realize that you had the same reading comprehension problems that Spongebob had.”

      Still has them.. Only the name has changed to STEPHEN!

      And chico, get it thru your thick skull Israel is an ally in every sense of the word. They are the opposite of Soetoro. They love America.

  • “Curing a madman is not arguing with a philosopher; it is casting out a devil. And however quietly doctors and psychologists may go to work in the matter, their attitude is profoundly intolerant…Their attitude is really this: that the man must stop thinking, if he is to go on living. Their counsel is one of intellectual amputation.”

    “Such is the madman of experience; he is commonly a reasoner, frequently a successful reasoner. Doubtless he could be vanquished in mere reason, and the case against him put logically. But it can be put much more precisely in more general and even aesthetic terms. He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity.”

    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humor or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.” — Chesterton