Opinion

December 12, 2011

David Suissa: Newt's bombshell

By David Suissa

Tweet

Share

“The Palestinian people does not exist,” exclaimed the politician. The audacity of the statement shocked me, because it came from the mouth of Zahir Muhsein, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization executive committee, in a 1977 interview with a Dutch newspaper.

“The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity,” Muhsein continued. “In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.”

When Republican candidate Newt Gingrich made similar remarks last week, calling the Palestinians an “invented people,” it caused a major uproar. Gingrich didn’t go as far as Muhsein — who claimed that the very reason for “inventing” the Palestinians was to wage war on Israel — but Gingrich still dropped the kind of bomb you rarely hear in polite company.

The real question is, so what? So what if the Palestinians are an invented people who keep fudging their narrative to make us believe their cause is as old as God? So what if they keep undermining the Israeli narrative to make us believe that the Jewish connection to the holy land is only as old as the Holocaust?

The point is, don’t we still need to make peace with them?

As my friends on the left argue: “The facts of history are not as important as the reality. The Palestinians are here to stay, and we must deal with this reality.”

For the past 20 years, this reality has been driven by one idea: Israel must reach a two-state solution with the Palestinians, or it will be forced one day to choose between being Jewish or being democratic — an impossible choice.

This scenario has created a virtual obsession with getting an agreement. Infused with pragmatism, peace seekers from the left and the right have generally ignored the importance of history and downplayed “inconvenient truths” such as a chronic inability on the Palestinian side to make peace with a Jewish state.

But pragmatism could get us only so far. The more concessions Israel made for peace, the further it got from an agreement. And the further it got from an agreement, the more pressure it got to make more concessions.

So, what went wrong?

In terms of the dynamics of negotiations, here’s my theory: When you allow the other side to undermine your narrative and to distort their own, you corrode the very process of negotiations. No amount of pragmatism can offset this corrosion.

Just look, for example, at the distorted narrative that Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) were “stolen from the Palestinian people.”

This kills any incentive for the Palestinians to make concessions. Why? Because if you believe something was stolen from you, what is there to negotiate? A thief must return what he stole — no questions asked. And if you’re the thief who must return the land, what “concessions” can you offer that would have any value?

Had Israel and its supporters clearly established the Jewish state’s historical claim to Judea and Samaria, this would have given real value to any Israeli concession regarding that land. Israel would be giving up land for the sake of peace, not giving back land because it is stolen.

Similarly, had Israel and its supporters clearly established the historical fact that the movement for a Palestinian state was a modern “invention” that began in earnest after the Israeli capture of Judea and Samaria in 1967 — and that the “Palestinian people” never asked for their “freedom” during the previous 19 years, when they were “occupied” by Jordan — this would have given real value to Israel’s concession of recognizing the very existence and nationalist rights of a Palestinian people.

Also, had Israel and its supporters pushed back against the Palestinian lies that undermine the 3,000-year Jewish connection to the holy land — and shown that they were deeply offended by these lies — they would have laid the foundations for mutual respect and improved the prospects for mutual reconciliation.

Instead, Israel chose to abandon history and focus on security, thus leaving the emotional high ground of historical justice to an enemy who has worked tirelessly to delegitimize the Zionist enterprise.

It’s noble to say, “Let bygones be bygones,” and, “Let’s put history behind us,” but that only works if both sides do it. If your rival uses distorted history as a weapon to undermine you, you must push back and assert your own narrative and your own rights; otherwise, all hope for mutual respect crumbles.

It’s also easy to say, “Each side has its own narrative, and they are equally valid,” but as Shlomo Avineri recently pointed out in Haaretz, it’s important to distinguish between narrative and historical truth. 

When Gingrich had the audacity last week to challenge the Palestinian narrative with historical truth, he got skewered for being out of touch with reality. But what reality are we talking about? The reality of a peace process that is virtually dead and of a Palestinian society that has so little respect for the Jewish connection to the holy land?

You can skewer Gingrich all you want, but as The Journal’s new senior political editor, Shmuel Rosner, acknowledged on his blog, Rosner’s Domain, at least Gingrich got his “facts right.” And facts do matter.

Maybe the most practical thing we can do at this stage of the peace process is begin a debate that will hold all sides accountable for blatant lies and distortions.

If the peace process hasn’t set us free, maybe the truth will.

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

David Suissa gets to the absolute heart of the issue…

Comment by Faith Schames on 12/12/11 at 5:46 pm

Finally, a column that makes sense!  While we need to have a two-state solution to have peace, it must be based on reality - and not on oil-funded Arab “mythological history”.

Comment by Michael Waterman on 12/12/11 at 5:58 pm

David:
You’re summary of the Arab use of false facts not only to defer peace but to avoid it on a path toward eliminating Israel is cogent and on target.  My concern about your relationship with your “friends” who deny what you say is that they have no need to modify their head-in-the-sand viewpoint (or narrative) if you keep insisting on how “friendly” you feel toward them. I’m speaking within the context of confrontation and debate about Israel not about the next movie or dinner date with your buddies.  Get serious and separate the two—we need people like you as “warrior” (symbolically speaking) not as matchmakers. 
Irv

Comment by Irving S. White, Ph.D. on 12/12/11 at 6:06 pm

In the light of what the prophet Ezekiel says of the inheritance of the remnant of Israel, the countries mentioned by PLOs Zahir Mussein, are part of it.  Christian America (I believe Gingrich is) is Israel’s David in contemporary time.  It will help Israel claim this inheritance.  It will also bring us closer to Armgeddon.

Comment by Norman E. Nabatar on 12/12/11 at 6:11 pm

As was stated by a retired employee with the State Department…....  Sure there was a Palestine. It was invented in the 1960s in a conference room at 1 Lubyanka, Dzershinsky Place, Red Square, Moscow, CCCP. It came complete with a “Palestinian people” too. In fact, its legacy leader was trained east of Moscow at the legendary Balashikha special-ops school.

Comment by Sally Taylor on 12/12/11 at 9:09 pm

This is must reading for everybody in the Jewish community. Thank you David for you clarity and your forthrightness. You’ll make a great editor-in-chief for the Jewish Journal. Again, thank you.

Comment by HOWARD LAITIN on 12/13/11 at 1:05 am

No, Mr Suissa,
You gave yourself away in the very start, with my friends on the left statement, because after that you seem to loath everything center or right of center. What Newt said is the truth, if there is no state or country, how can you call yourself something your not? Where is your substance? Yet someone who is established through GOD almighty, you belittle and say they have their history wrong. Why do you guys never bring up the teaching of your children, hatred? You know, how they teach them in school, to hate a jew. Please, it is you that is confused, Audacity and Truth are polar opposites.

Comment by Larry Pollard on 12/13/11 at 5:48 am

well you win this week’s out of context quote award here’s the full quotation:
“Gingrich doesn’t rewrite history. He gets his facts right, without realizing, or explaining, that such facts don’t much matter. If the “Palestinian People” were created two thousand years ago or twenty minutes ago doesn’t matter, as long as one is convinced that they are here to stay. And as far as I can tell, they are here to stay, and Israelis are here to stay as well (as the residents of a Jewish State) and all else is just a distraction from this reality.”

http://www.jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain/item/gingrichs_invented_people_are_here_to_stay_20111210/

Comment by L wineman on 12/13/11 at 10:16 pm

It matters very much

This documents the Pales have absolutely no claim to E Jerusalem. Previously, I posted the exact words of the Jordanian commander who acknowledged that E Jerusalem was a Jewish area and bragged that he had eliminated every Jew & every trace of Jewish presence & was resettling Arabs into Jewish homes

when I read of some Arab family being evicted after they appealed and failed to win at the Israeli Supreme Court after living in a house 50 years that was Jewish owned I wonder why the left will demand restoration to Jews whose property was looted by the Nazis and will not accord the same justice to those whose property in Israel was looted by the Arabs

Comment by LT COL HOWARD on 12/14/11 at 1:38 pm

L Wineman never fails to be wrong, except on this one. The definition of Palestinians as people does no longer bother most Israelis who are aware of their existence and their strong national identity. Wineman, with the proper rhetoric you can still win some hearts, especially when you are making sense.

Comment by Avi on 12/14/11 at 2:24 pm

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kinsley-palestine-gingrich-20111213,0,2018943.column
Here is a partial list you could add to the
list of “invented people” to include Americans (as opposed to native americans),canadians, australians(other than aborigines) , new zealanders, germans,italians, syrians, iraqis, lebanese, pakistanis,and virtually every nationality in africa and latin america.

Comment by L Wineman on 12/14/11 at 5:23 pm

As long as there are Jews as dense asL Wineman who miss the full implications of the Palestinian drive to   delegitimize Israel and denies connection to the land of Israel the Islamists have won the propaganda war and Israel will be destroyed.

It is not the actions of the Islamists is the irresolution and denial of the reality by the well-meaning liberals ever lead to Israel’s demise. Wake up Wineman and understand the message and quit cluttering the discussion with irrelevant nonsense.

Comment by CHRISTIAN on 12/15/11 at 1:13 pm

“Had Israel and its supporters clearly established the Jewish state’s historical claim to Judea and Samaria”

some people agree with you. Namely the “hilltop youth” whose “claim” makes them feel they have the “right” to build settlements under Israeli law and attack Israeli soldiers that attempt to enforce the law and remove them The debate in israel: Are they anarchists or terrorists” ? Take a look :

http://www.mako.co.il/news-columns/Article-bfd4027cd1e3431017.htm

I assume many of the commenters here hold the same views on settlements as the youth attacking israeli soldiers

Comment by lwineman on 12/15/11 at 1:36 pm

The IDF should not have been used to remove the youth. In Israel, with everyone serving is especially important that Jews not physically attack of the Jews. On the other hand the youth (and others) should not have attacked the IDF. Going limp and making removable difficult is okay; physical assaults which might cause harm is not okay. Thank you lwineman for your reference which gave me a chance to practice my Hebrew.

Comment by LT COL HOWARD on 12/15/11 at 4:26 pm

LWineman will never fail to disappoint. Yes, LWineman, for most Israelis Jewish historic claim for Judea and Samaria is just as valid as their claim for Tel Aviv, Metuala, and Eilat. The difference arises around the issue of whether it makes sense morally, politically, aanf economically, and what to do with the Arabs (As opposed to the Arabs, who have no qualm about what to do with the Jews)

Comment by Avi on 12/15/11 at 8:28 pm

LT HOWARD: The territories, as you know, have not been declared official Israeli territories. The Israeli police has no authority in the disputed territories (nor does it have the means to do it), only the IDF has. It is a real problem which has been tearing the IDF to pieces.

Comment by Avi on 12/16/11 at 11:43 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?