Newt Gingrich “ No Palestine” } Newt Gingrich a Provocateur and Fire starter
To illustrate and be true to the tittle of this story I Am posting this story that appeared at The Provocation.net. I feel it shows the heart of this issue. The issue is Newt saying there is no Palestine. Even Israel doesn’t say that. It s a classy way to get rid of a problem, ignore it. Say is not there. But he wan’t trying to solve a problem or get rid of it. No because that is not who Newt is. He is a provocateur and that is what he was doing and that’s what he does best. ‘Firestarter’ is a good term for him. adamfoxie*
THE NEWS: Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich drew intense fire from the Palestinian Authority for declaring that the Palestinians are an "invented" people:
Almost.
Gingrich, who has taught history lessons to supposedly less enlightened students, apparently needs one himself. Here's a news flash for you Newt: The Palestinians did have a state before the Israelis (then more commonly known as Hebrews) ever arrived on the scene. All you have to do is check your Bible, a book that a man who converted to Catholicism after being a Baptist for most of his life should know pretty well.
Apparently, however, he failed to notice numerous references to a people called the Philistines who were mentioned numerous times in the Old Testament. The Arabic word for Palestine is Filistin. In Greek, it's known as Palaistine; in Latin, as Palaestina. In Akkadian, a language spoken widely during the second millennium BCE, Palestinians were called Palestu. In short, the terms Philistine and Palestinian mean exactly the same thing.
Now, if the Bible is infallible, as may on the religious right who gravitate toward the Republican Party believe, it seems only fair that such folks should find out what it says about these people. And what it says isn't particularly flattering ... to Israel.
According to the Bible, all this took place two generations before the birth of Israel's eponymous founder, Jacob/Israel ... and hundreds of years before Moses and Joshua led the Hebrews out of Egypt and into Palestine. The Palestinians had their first king during the time of Abraham; the Israelis, by contrast, didn't have their first king until almost 1,000 years later. That king was a man named Saul, who was subsequently defeated in a coup by Israel's most famous hero, David.
How did David succeed in overthrowing the House of Saul? Through an alliance with none other than the Philistines. This may come as something of a shock to those who remember David primarily for slaying an oversized Philistine warrior named Goliath with his sling. But later on, the Book of Samuel clearly states that David found himself on the defensive against Saul and sought refuge from his enemy's forces with none other than the Philistines: "David fled from Saul and went to Achish king of Gath" (1 Sam. 27:10).
Gath was Goliath's home city - and one of five cities that were part of the Philistine federation. What's worth noting here is that David didn't merely go into hiding somewhere in Palestine; rather, he went directly to the king. Let's put this into perspective for a moment: Imagine what would happen if Gingrich, a year after resigning from the House of Representatives, defected to Russia and became Vladimir Putin's honored guest at the Kremlin. Does the word "treason" come to mind? Well, this is exactly the sort of thing David did.
And it gets worse. Not only did David find a safe haven with King Achish of Gath, he formed a military alliance with him against the leader of his own country: "David and the six hundred men with him left and went over to Achish son of Maok king of Gath. David and his men settled in Gath with Achish" (1 Sam. 27:2-3). In return for the alliance, Achish ceded part of his territory to David, which the author of Samuel declared "has belonged to the kings of Judah ever since."
When the Philistine forces marched into battle against Saul's Israeli contingent, David was right there with him. Some of the Philistine commanders, however, didn't trust him. He had, after all, betrayed his own people to them, and they were understandably wary that he might switch sides again and fight against them. Because of their suspicions, Achish reluctantly sent David away, despite his vehement protest that he wanted to fight with the Philistines against his own people.
"What have I done?” he wanted to know. “What have you found against your servant from the day I came to you until now? Why can’t I go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?" (1 Sam. 29:8).
David eventually followed Achish's order to quit the field, and the Philistines defeated Saul's army - mortally wounding Saul in the process - without David's help. But it's worth noting that David didn't defect to Saul's side, either. He simply left the area and proceeded to secure the area that Achish had ceded to him.
So not only were the Palestinians there first, the nation of Israel as we know it from the Bible would never even have existed without them. David would never have become king. His son Solomon would never have built the famed temple, and the entire nation might have been conquered by Achish and disappeared from history altogether - if not for his generosity toward David.
The Palestinians are not an "invented" people, at all. Neither are the Jews. Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erakat is entirely right in referring to Gingrich's remark as "racist" and "despicable."
It could, however, be argued that Israel itself is an artificially "invented" state. It was, after all, created under the auspices of the United Nations in 1948.
The move was part of a plan to create "independent Arab and Jewish states" in a region that had been known, under British rule between 1923 and 1948, as Palestine. Not Israel. It was also known as Palestine under the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires. The name Israel resurfaced as a place name for the territory a little more than a half-century ago. Compare that to nearly two millennia during which it was known as Palestine, or some variation thereof.
So there's your history lesson, Mr. Gingrich. I hope you enjoyed it. The next time you go spouting off about "invented" people, I hope you're referring to the android Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Or that absurd notion of corporate personhood so many Republicans have been championing lately. As it is, the sort of history you've been championing seems like the revisionist sort practiced by the old Soviet Union. So maybe you'd feel more at home in the Kremlin, after all. It would give you time to bone up on the Bible ... and maybe get things right the next time you decide to open your mouth.
"I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state," Gingrich said in the interview. "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, who are historically part of the Arab community."THE PROVOCATION: Gingrich likes to present himself as a scholar and a historian. He's got a Ph.D. from Tulane University and has actually taught history at the college level. In this light, his ignorance as a historian is almost as troubling as his lack of diplomacy as a politician.
Almost.
Gingrich, who has taught history lessons to supposedly less enlightened students, apparently needs one himself. Here's a news flash for you Newt: The Palestinians did have a state before the Israelis (then more commonly known as Hebrews) ever arrived on the scene. All you have to do is check your Bible, a book that a man who converted to Catholicism after being a Baptist for most of his life should know pretty well.
Apparently, however, he failed to notice numerous references to a people called the Philistines who were mentioned numerous times in the Old Testament. The Arabic word for Palestine is Filistin. In Greek, it's known as Palaistine; in Latin, as Palaestina. In Akkadian, a language spoken widely during the second millennium BCE, Palestinians were called Palestu. In short, the terms Philistine and Palestinian mean exactly the same thing.
 |
| Ruins from the Philistine city of Gath. |
For one thing, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that the Philistines were there first. The Book of Genesis relates that Abraham, the putative founder of the Jewish nation, "stayed in the land of the Philistines for a long time" and actually had a run-in with the king of the Philistines, one Abimelek. It's generally understood that kings rule nations, so it's pretty clear that there was, in fact, a Philistine (Palestinian) state at this point in time - at least if one is to believe the Bible.
According to the Bible, all this took place two generations before the birth of Israel's eponymous founder, Jacob/Israel ... and hundreds of years before Moses and Joshua led the Hebrews out of Egypt and into Palestine. The Palestinians had their first king during the time of Abraham; the Israelis, by contrast, didn't have their first king until almost 1,000 years later. That king was a man named Saul, who was subsequently defeated in a coup by Israel's most famous hero, David.
Gath was Goliath's home city - and one of five cities that were part of the Philistine federation. What's worth noting here is that David didn't merely go into hiding somewhere in Palestine; rather, he went directly to the king. Let's put this into perspective for a moment: Imagine what would happen if Gingrich, a year after resigning from the House of Representatives, defected to Russia and became Vladimir Putin's honored guest at the Kremlin. Does the word "treason" come to mind? Well, this is exactly the sort of thing David did.
And it gets worse. Not only did David find a safe haven with King Achish of Gath, he formed a military alliance with him against the leader of his own country: "David and the six hundred men with him left and went over to Achish son of Maok king of Gath. David and his men settled in Gath with Achish" (1 Sam. 27:2-3). In return for the alliance, Achish ceded part of his territory to David, which the author of Samuel declared "has belonged to the kings of Judah ever since."
 |
| Ziklag, the region given to David by Achish. |
"What have I done?” he wanted to know. “What have you found against your servant from the day I came to you until now? Why can’t I go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?" (1 Sam. 29:8).
David eventually followed Achish's order to quit the field, and the Philistines defeated Saul's army - mortally wounding Saul in the process - without David's help. But it's worth noting that David didn't defect to Saul's side, either. He simply left the area and proceeded to secure the area that Achish had ceded to him.
The upshot of all this is that Israel's most revered king actually gained the throne, not because of his own military prowess, but based on a treacherous alliance with the Philistines. The Palestinians. The shocking truth of the matter is that David's kingdom would never even have existed without them. Not only did their king give him a chunk of land, he also killed off his rival - the rightful king of Israel.
The Palestinians are not an "invented" people, at all. Neither are the Jews. Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erakat is entirely right in referring to Gingrich's remark as "racist" and "despicable."
 |
| Top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat. |
The move was part of a plan to create "independent Arab and Jewish states" in a region that had been known, under British rule between 1923 and 1948, as Palestine. Not Israel. It was also known as Palestine under the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires. The name Israel resurfaced as a place name for the territory a little more than a half-century ago. Compare that to nearly two millennia during which it was known as Palestine, or some variation thereof.
So there's your history lesson, Mr. Gingrich. I hope you enjoyed it. The next time you go spouting off about "invented" people, I hope you're referring to the android Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Or that absurd notion of corporate personhood so many Republicans have been championing lately. As it is, the sort of history you've been championing seems like the revisionist sort practiced by the old Soviet Union. So maybe you'd feel more at home in the Kremlin, after all. It would give you time to bone up on the Bible ... and maybe get things right the next time you decide to open your mouth.
Comments