One of the ways ideas are brought to people's attention in a persuasive manner is by a leader or a respected opinion changer or someone who commands a large audience or is in a position where he can't be ignored by media censorship. In this case, we are referring to Newt Gingrich's remarks on the Fake people, the Palestinians. In the last issue, we emphasized what the facts are. Sources such as Think-Israel have been printing the facts about the phony people, the Palestinians, for years, but it sure helps to have a national figure say the same thing.
Gingrich simply said a few facts that should be boringly obvious, but aren't. Aside from creating a historic fact himself --- here was someone who was willing to stop pretending the Arab fantasy was history -- the reactions to Gingrich's comments themselves warrant consideration for several reasons. For one, Israel was annoyingly unwilling to make use of an opportunity to inform people that it is justified to take charge of its own land. For another, we've learned that media people were not as ignorant of the facts as we thought.
Considering how much media people have sympathized with the plight of the Palestinian, you would think they truly believed the Arab narrative. So what happened when Gingrich said that the Palestinian Arabs are not a people; they are not indigenous to the land of Israel and they have never owned the land? We discovered that very many people who echo the Arab plaints are well aware the Palestinians are not legitimate and have no case. Yet they go with the flow. sympathizing with the Arab, condemning the Jew. Now why would that be? It's something we should all think about.
IN THE FAIRY TALE, TAILORS HAD SCAMMED THE EMPEROR into believing he was dressed in beautiful clothes, when in reality he was naked. In the fairy tale, what made the scam work was that it was two-pronged. Besides persuading the Emperor, the swindlers asserted that their clothes were invisible to the stupid and the incompetent. And who wants to be called stupid and incompetent? So everyone went along with the swindle. In the fairy tale the child states the obvious: "The emperor is naked," and that was the end of the scam.
In real life, Gingrich announced what was true about the Palestinian Arabs. And in so doing, he's earned a place in the history books of the future. But the blatant lie that the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians are a people -- with the subsidiary hoax that they've own the land from time immemorial -- didn't instantly dissolve. Too many people had too much invested to abandon the assumption that what we have is two people with equally-good claims who must learn to share a common space. So the controllers, the ignorers, the distractors, and the pontificators of pseudo-facts came out in force to stuff inconvenient facts about the Palestinian Arabs back in the bottle. Gingrich spoke simply but bluntly, so there would be no misunderstanding. He gave us the opportunity of reexamining all the false statements and wish-fulfilling fantasies that had accreted around the shimmering notion that Koran-fed Arabs could become vegetarians. Instead, much of the media, the experts, the prattlers, the minimizers, the sneerers, the twisters, the deniers and the spinners of dazzling inconsequentials have worked hard to wipe out his words.
From early reactions, it became clear that many who went along with proclaiming the need for a negotiated peace between Jews and Arabs (i.e., Jews give up land and Arabs graciously accept it for a brief moment before demanding further concessions) were not part of the willfully ignorant, those who depended on their information from the mainstream news. In contrast to Gingrich's bold handling of a difficult but supposedly understood problem, Gingrich's opponents for the Republican nomination for President, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, said the equivalent of, 'Yup, we know that. But it just doesn't fit into what people are trying to accomplish in the Middle East.'
A PARTICULARLY SAD FACT IS THAT THE ISRAELIS didn't pick up the ball and score a goal with it. As Scott3434, a reader of Caroline Glick's article, "Hamas and the Washington establishment", said:
"Sadly, while Gingrich spoke the truth about the Arabs here in Israel, our own leaders will not. This is the real problem.
It doesn't matter who is in the white house when our so-called leaders here in Israel appear to have abandoned Zionism all together.
Abbas has given Netanyahu one golden opportunity after another to declare Oslo null and void (as if there were not enough reasons to already).
But Netanyahu just persists in pleading with Abbas to 'negotiate' our demise."
Why didn't the Jews take advantage of this opening to articulate a realistic plan that would not be suicidal? Why did they go along with a plan that provides the choice between becoming a basket case in the short run and committing suicide in the long run? They are noted for revising plans quickly for effective response. Why haven't they?
Has it something to do with maintaining a low profile in the face of 'world opinion' that Jews learned in order to survive two thousand years in a mostly hostile diaspora? Incorporation of the enemy's threat is a subset of the Stockholm Syndrome. The victims don't necessarily admire those that threaten them but they incorporate the threat issued against themselves. They make it part of their intrinsic set of motivators. They spin their web of beliefs around it.
As an egregious example of incorporating the enemy's view, consider that Jews stopped proselytizing when the Church became powerful enough to say: continue proselytizing and we will kill off Judaism. Judaism was a strong conversionary religion when the Roman Empire ruled. Jews still sing in prayer, "For out of Zion shall go forth Torah and the word of God from Jerusalem." But they ignore what it means. They no longer actively convert. They have built up a repertoire of reasons to make it hard to become a Jew. In short, they have incorporated their enemy's threats.
And finally, think about the present day bizarre image of Netanyahu bribing Abbas with "economic incentives" to come back to talk peace. Abbas's term of office ran out 2 years ago but the Palestinian Authority won't run the risk of holding elections -- Hamas doesn't need election fraud to win big. And if Hamas starts showing signs of becoming civilized, the people will vote for the Islamic Jihad or some other group that is even more brutal and vicious.
frequently photographed praising Arab suiciding murderers. Israel
doesn't object. The Israeli administration ignores that Fatah and
Hamas both dream of the same fate for Israel -- destruction. Israel
does mind that Hamas and Fatah might link up officially. There is high
comedy in Israel's Foreign Ministry writing, "By clarifying to the
Palestinian Authority that impenitent terrorist organizations cannot
be partners with those seeking peace, the world will be telling the
Palestinians that terrorism will not be tolerated or rewarded." Does
that mean that penitent terrorist organizations can be peace
partners? And when Abbas holds up a map of Israel that is labeled
Palestine, is he being a penitent terrorist? Or just a
By Herb Keinon. Feb 9, 2012, "Israel urges world to reject Palestinian unity gov't," http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=257254
Speaking of Fatah -- the acceptable terrorists -- Israel has begged
Arab villages in Samaria to please please let Israel connect them up
to a central sewage pipe. What and leave the ancient joy of letting
waste flow directly into the water supply! Naturally the good
terrorists of the Palestinian Authority refused.
weinberg. 9feb12. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=1343
The real wonder is why Netanyahu doesn't unchain Israel from the Oslo
trap. There is no Peace Process. The operation is like a bunch of
leeches bleeding Israel, weakening it, preventing it from properly
defending itself. Gingrich gave him the opportunity to say, "we did
more than our share. There is no peace. We are going to make our land
-- Samaria and Judea -- safe for the Jews. We're no longer going to
sacrifice our firstborns to the pagan god of Islam. Fini. Finished.
Finito." But he didn't. Considering that the countries that were said
to be blossoming democracies just a few months ago -- Egypt, Turkey,
Syria, Libya and maybe even Jordan and Lebanon -- have u-turned and
are racing toward a harsh and vindictive implementation of Islam, Netanyahu should be
worrying about how to keep Israel safe from its insane neighbors, not
how to bribe the Palestinians to make nice.
see also Glick peace process dead. world review 10feb12
AS WE'D EXPECT, ARAB LEADERS AND SPOKESMEN were furious that Gingrich would contradict their version of history. Not having the facts on their side, they fell back on the old reliables: Hanan Ashrawi called Gingrich's comments "very racist"; Prez Abbas said they would "increase the cycle of violence"; PM Fayyad insisted "our people have been here since the very beginning." He didn't define beginning. The Elder of Ziyon (EoZ) website reports that the PLO representative to the USA, Maen Rashid Areikat, said "Jericho, my home town, goes as far back as 10,000 B.C., making it the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world." It's not clear to me how that makes the 'Palestinians' contemporaneous with Joshua. Does growing up in Boston make me a member of the Wampanoag tribe? As an aside, EoZ makes this interesting point:
"...there is plenty of evidence that a significant number of "Palestinians" came from elsewhere. The Nashashibis, who were prominent residents of Jerusalem for centuries, arrived in Palestine in 1469. The Al Nammaris came after the expulsion of Muslims from Spain. The Dajani family came from Arabia. These were considered among the most prominent Arab clans in the Jerusalem area.
"Furthermore, a significant number of Palestinian Arabs have surnames that indicate they came from elsewhere: Hejazi from Arabia, Mughrabi from Morocco, Masri from Egypt, Haurani from Syria, Turki and Dogmush from Turkey, Yamani from Yemen, Jaziri from Algeria, Hindi from India, Kurdi from Kurdistan, Halabi from Aleppo, and many more.
"No Arabs have the surname Filisteeni. Moreover, all the major tribes that lived near Jerusalem in the 19th century came from Arabia. And the Yamani and the Qais tribes in Palestine, who engaged in a famous centuries-old feud, came from Yemen and southern Arabia, respectively."
If the laws for criminalizing criticism of Islam were already in place, the Arabs would see to it that Gringrich was indicted.
SOME POLITICOS IGNORED THE SUBJECT MATTER and went for the ad hominem. John Sununu, a case in point, in claiming Gingrich had an unspecified "congenital problem" sounded like an Arab. Wait a minute. He is part Arab.
Some Obama-venerating Jews were just as outraged. A Jewish M.D. from Long Island firstname.lastname@example.org 27dec11 denied Gingrich's assertion that the Palestinians weren't a people by lecturing that "Within Arabism[sic] there exist scores of tribes, some of whom emerged in the wake of World War I and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, to occupy inherently incompatible borders as Iraqis. Kuwaitis, Lebanese, Saudis." He may be saying that tribes became states when the Ottoman empire was carved up. If that's his point, it works against him because the Palestinians never had a state for the Israelis to wrest from them. If he means that a particular tribe could find itself spread across several Arab countries while it shared space in a new-made state with other tribes, that is certainly true. But the "Palestinians" don't see themselves as a tribe, nor are they one. They are a motley group of Arabs -- of course they have tribal affiliations but that wasn't what brought them to "Palestine" in the 20th century. The betterment of the economy did.
Actually the doctor's major fury is directed at those who don't recognize that the Republican candidates don't measure up to "the caliber, intellect, articulation and fluency of English with President Obama, even with warts." Well, Obama can be sure of one Jewish vote.
Compared to the facts-deprived and information-deficient critics,
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post sounded reasonable. She
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/conservatives-need-some-peer-review/2011/12/11/gIQATM0ZnO_blog.html asked, "Do conservatives really think it is a good idea for their nominee to reverse decades of U.S. policy and deny there is a Palestinian national identity?" ("Is it really a good idea to start telling children the earth isn't flat? Oh my gosh, if I tell them the earth is round, they might want to leave home and go off exploring" I silently mimic her.)
Elliott Abrams said pretty much the same, "It is true that Palestinian nationalism is new, but so are Iraqi, Jordanian and Syrian nationalism; those nations were all created out of the Ottoman empire after the First and Second World Wars."
The response by FOX's Greta Van Susteran was much the same. She felt Gingrich's comment about the Palestinians being an invention was "inflammatory". Was he, she wondered, pandering for the Jewish vote.
Left and right, people we rely on to absorb the facts, weigh them, integrate them and tell us what it all means have been aware the Palestinians aren't an ancient people who lost their land through no fault of their own. They know that the only land Israel is occupying is their own. But they haven't told us. Why is that?
They seem very much to want to continue to subscribe to the Arab fantasy. They would just as soon not have it said aloud that there is no Palestinian people. Why is that?
Many, each in his or her own way, are suggesting that the real sin is that Mr. Gingrich might have made it a tad more difficult for the EU and the UN and State Department and the heads of Western governments to continue to inflict their 2-state policy on Israel. Why is that?
Why the airy dismissal of the real status of the Palestinians? Why, suddenly, is it unimportant that they are not the owners of the Land of Israel? Just yesterday it was very important. It was the reason why the defenseless Arabs living in the Territories had to resort to beheading, rock throwing, shooting at cars on the road, and slitting the throats of Jewish babies. It's been important enough that we shouldn't blame the Muslims when they kidnap Americans -- after all, how else can they stop big powerful America from helping the Jews, who stole their land? It's been important enough for mainline churches to feel virtuous in divesting themselves of stocks in companies that do business with Israel. It's the reason that college students neglect classes to hold banners in front of stores that sell Israeli goods. Their targets are somewhat arbitrary, of course. They aren't about to give up their cell phones and computers that are stocked with hardware and software developed in Israel. How else can they organize their plans for street theater and boycotts?
The horrible behavior of the Arabs towards their own families -- using their women as human shields, taking their children's childhood from them and training them to become robots of war -- has been mostly ignored, because, supposedly, they had cause.
But they had no cause. The media knew it. The politicians knew it. The church people knew it.
Why malign the messenger and look away from a rather dreadful but real fact: the foreign policy of western countries in the Middle East as embodied in the Oslo Accords has been to give the Palestinian People land they are not entitled to have.
And now media people won't admit their pretense that the Arabs were clothed in virtue has been one big hoax. Why is that?
SOME BRAZENED IT OUT. So maybe the media took liberties with the truth. OK, so maybe Arabs don't exactly have title to the Jewish land. But after 50 years of training, the Palestinian Arabs believe they are a people, an ancient people who have lived in Palestine forever. They believe that the Jews stole their land. We must be sensitive to their feelings. We must respect their beliefs. We should continue to look for a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. We should judge the claims of both people as equal. Let's keep on pretending. Who knows? Maybe something good will happen out of all this lying and demonizing Israel and whitewashing the Arabs.
And maybe it won't.
If the Palestinian Arabs are now convinced they are a people, can they claim land retroactively? Some history books in America claim the Muslims came here pre-Columbus and are part of the Indian tribes. Can Muslims now claim the land your house stands on?
And why should the USA knowingly base its Middle East policy on a baseless lie? Why should we continue to follow this policy, especially when it is clearly a bust. It has led to the deaths of innocent Israelis. It has wounded thousands more for life. The fear of random bombings and rushing missiles has scarred a generation of Jewish children. Israel has been painted as a country that is uniquely evil. The leaders of the Muslim countries where millions have been massacred, tortured and raped and starved and enslaved, just don't measure up to Israel in evil.
Why have so many who should be guiding our thinking helped along the big lie? Why are they hoping that the public will not become conscious of what has been revealed? I wish I had an elegant theory to explain why so many have a fear of the public knowing what they know. But I don't.
It may just be that when an idea takes possession of the minds of the public, it is just too much to fight against. It is easier to go along. If that's the case, I'd like to know how much did it cost to install the idea in the public's consciousness in first place. And who has been paying for it?
It may be that jobs at newspapers are drying up. So reporters don't question the belief system held by their employers. They can't leave for another job that easily any more. If that's true, I'd like to know the names of those in the higher echelon that are actually determining the coloration of the whole organization.
Maybe some of our university people falsified ther research? Here we don't have to guess. Professors like Edward Said literally controlled the prejudices of Middle East studies and linguistics departments across the country for many years. The only thing we don't know is who was encouraging university administrators and academics to go along with Said's ideas. But we can guess at that. Today, the Saudis give money openly on Sunday. And on Monday we see a conference demonizing Jews, a textbook of adoration of Mohammad, a teach-in on the joys of being a Muslim, a teacher's workbook where you can guess at the right answers with a simple rule: Arabs is good, Israel is bad. Retroactively, we can figure out how Arab money has been corrupting elite universities since before we began questioning their authority.
Then too, there exists in American society a deeply-felt feeling that we should share some of our wealth and help the downtrodden, two convictions that ironically have been manipulated to work against Israel.
Our conditioning to help the underdog is strong. Just tell us, who's David and who is Goliath and we know how to react. Instantly. I'm not sure how it happened but much of the world is certain that despite the fact that Israel is tiny in land, people and resources, she is mighty and strong, while the millions of Arabs who reside on 99.9% of the Middle East are David. So it is Israel that must share. It works against Israel that she is actually is a generous humanitarian country. She's more likely to worry she isn't doing enough than a less generous country.
TO ME, THE MOST NOVEL REBUTTAL was reinventing the plain meaning of invented.
Dennis Hale summed up the
responses to Gingrich this way: "1) It's true, but irrelevant (Charles
Krauthammer); 2) It's false, and Gingrich is a bigot (John Sununu); 3)
It's false, and Gingrich is ignorant (Fatah leader Dimitri Diliani,
who explained that "the Palestinian people descended from the
Canaanites"). Hale then added an addition subgroup by asserting: All peoples are
"To take the obvious case," Hale writes, "'Americans' were once Englishmen, no different politically from the English in England. In 1776, for well-known reasons, the English in America re-invented themselves as Americans. It then became necessary for them to invent a country."
I would disagree. The United States of America was created, just as modern Israel was created. It had roots. It has substructure. It had a basic morality and rules of law that grew out of its definition of what was moral and just. It was intrigued by the idea that people who were fair-minded and respected each other could pretty much handle their own lives. Americans did not start with a one-size-fits-all situations and conditions of mankind. It might see itself until independence as English, but it had already developed "American" ways of doing things. The parts were functioning and interacting. It but needed the final touches: a name to play the political game, and rules of interaction.
In contrast, the Palestinian people was invented. The group of people who lived as refugees in various Arab countries was in a moment declared a people. Binding them together -- persuading them that they were not Syrian but Palestinian, inducing in them a longing for a land they had never had, a land many had never seen or read about or had ever heard of, conditioning them to believe they were rooted in the Land and had lost it to Israel -- these all came after the fact. What didn't develop naturally were ways of letting people be free. From the beginning, it was a Thuggery with a few strong men in control, the rest obedient out of piety or fear of drastic punishment. The leaders were more concerned with their obsession to destroy Israel and their desire to feather their own nests than to organize a society that attempted to maximize harmony and civility among its citizens.
BUT, says Hale, drawing closer to the "it's irrelevent" argument while exposing the essence of Palestinianism,
"What makes Palestine and Palestinians different from these other would-be nations and peoples is that Palestinian Arabs only pretend that they want to be a people with their own nation. What Palestinian Arabs really want is depressingly clear: they want to destroy Israel and kill the Jews. Just ask them. Or watch PA-TV, or read the Palestinian Authority schoolbooks, or look at their public documents and maps, which proclaim and show a region without Israel. Or look at how the Palestinian Arabs have actually behaved on the several occasions when they were offered their own state. (And this includes the first offer, of Jordan, which is three-quarters of the original Palestine Mandate.) On each occasion they have said, essentially, 'No thanks, not good enough, not as long as Israel continues to exist.' Their many supporters in the Arab world say the same thing, and will not tolerate any backsliding from the core principles of the PLO and Hamas charters, for whom 'freeing Palestine' and 'killing the Jews' are synonymous. It's as if in the 1920s the great obstacle to Irish independence had not been the six counties still within the United Kingdom, but the continued existence of the English people. As ruthless and crazy as the IRA was, it never contemplated the annihilation of England, and never made such a goal the center of its policy. The Irish loved Ireland more than they hated the English.
"Not so the Palestinians. So what Newt Gingrich should have said which would have gotten him into even more trouble is simply this: The idea of a Palestinian nation is just a trick to fool the kafirs, and not the desire of any actual Palestinian Arab people. A nation they could have. What they can't have is religiously inspired genocide. But genocide is what their leaders insist, over and over again, that they really want, which is why the so-called 'Middle East peace process' is, in fact, the single greatest obstacle to peace in the Middle East."
Some of Gingrich's critics stayed off the concept of people and talked about us all living in invented countries in that boundaries are usually arbitrary and almost always susceptible to change. Some made clear that though it was hard to disentangle a people from its state, a people once established could subsist without a state or with shifting borders. Contrariwise, it usually took the existence of a state, sovereignty, to at least initially serve as the ground for the development of peoplehood.
Peoplehood has a meaning -- or it does unless looked at under high enough resolution to lose sight of contours. It is usually an ethnicity glued together by a religion. The Copts are the descendents of the Egyptians of Biblical time and early converts to Christianity. A Jew is both a member of the Jewish religion and of the Jewish people. He is born of Jewish parents and automatically acquires membership in the religion. Or he converts to the religion and automatically acquires membership in the Jewish people.
In America, they didn't invent a nation -- it was empirically ready to coalesce. The organizers had issues to resolve, most looming large because of the ordinary human failings of vanity and ego.
But binding the collection of independent States into a single entity was doable. And done. The interconnections between people and their common interests were strong enough to hold the enterprise together. The people might be culturally the children of England, but most had rebelled against many of the English practices and had lived independent lives for long enough to like their independence. An American was someone deliberately identifying himself by citizenship in a newly-created country with a unique Constitution. The amalgam of immigrants from other countries was yet to come. The character of the American people would develop as circumstances changed but it was always limited by the Constitution and the ways of life the Constitution and later, the Bill of Rights, encouraged. Then, too, there was always the practical rule of thumb: you shouldn't try to subjugate people too much, because they can always uproot and go west.
The Palestinians are not a separate people. They are totally identical in life style, culture, religion, language and attitude to the other Arabs in the region. They are at best the grain of sand that sometime in the future might be an independent pearl on the string of Arab countries. When the Jews and Brits started developing what was an almost non-existent economy, motley groups of Arabs came from all over the Middle East and migrated into what had been ancient Israel -- and was then labeled "Palestine" by the Brits who had conquered the land from its Ottoman rulers. In 1948, the neighboring Arab states invaded the new-born Jewish state. Many Arabs living there fled, often because the Arab leaders ordered them to leave. Jordan conquered the eastern part of Jerusalem, kicked out the Jews living there and invited in Arabs from neighboring countries. In 1964, Yasir Arafat, the Thug in Charge, declared them a people.
Actually, it took much longer to determine who qualified to be a Palestinian. Initially, Arafat spoke just of the Arab "refugees" -- they were useful to evoke sympathy. Posters of sad-looking refugee children hung in the United Nations building in NYC. The Arabs actually living in Israel and the Territories outside of the camps were not included. Later, the local Arabs were allowed in. But like the Sahara sand, the definition of Palestinian is still shifting. It was recently announced by the PLO's ambassador to Lebanon that the Arab refugees living in UNRWA camps will not be given citizenship in the Palestinian state the PLO is trying to get from the U.N. Even the Arab refugees now living in camps in Gaza and under the Palestinian Authority, will not be granted citizenship. They will continue to be refugees. As Evelyn Gordon puts it,
"This is simply unbelievable. For years, the world has backed a Palestinian state on the grounds Palestinians are stateless people who deserve a country of their own. And now, a senior Palestinian official has announced once they have received a state, most Palestinians will still be stateless even those who actually live in "Palestine."
The ruling will affect "some 689,000 of the West Bank's 2.4 million
Palestinians and 1.1 million of Gaza's 1.5 million Palestinians", in
total, some 45% of the Arab population in the Territories. What will happen
to them and the 2.9 million diaspora refugees living in the Arab
countries, supposedly waiting to return someday to their homes in Palestine?
These refugees will continue to rely on the dole provided by the
countries that financially support the U.N.
The major claim to fame of the Palestinians is that they have inflicted more harm on Israel than the Arab states combined. With luck, they might someday develop into a truly rotten monster. They can't even maintain civility or a functioning government among themselves. Ignoring all the small start-ups, they has split into two main parts, where Hamas, the bloodier of the two, would absorb the Palestinian Authority in a minute if it weren't protected by Israel and the U.S.A. There is no longer a legal government for the PA or a mechanism for creating one, for fear of voting in Hamas.
What if both Hamas and Fatah had heart transplants and became civilized. What if they did ever combine in practice and settled down to learning the mundane mechanics of running a State -- my impression is that their longest period of amity has been 2-3 weeks, but I haven't checked -- they would both be run out of town by one of the nastier splinter groups that have taken up residence in Gaza. The Islamic Fatah or an al-Qaeda franchise or some other ambitious group of cut throats would take over. The ordinary Arabs have consistently chosen war and invasion of Israel whenever they have been polled. Let them near the ballot box and they'll confirm it.
The PA is poor material for establishing a state. The place to look
for a nation-state would logically be the 22 Arab
states now in existence. There's been a stated desire for pan-Arabism for over 100
years. You'd think there would by now be a state composed of the
existing Arab states, most of whom have arbitrary borders drawn by the League of
Nations' authority when they gifted the Arabs with the spoils of the Ottoman
Middle East. Natural linkages -- tribal affinities, variants of
Islamic belief -- were mostly ignored. You would think that by now they would
have united as an entity instead of being nodes of violence against each
other and all of them against the world. As Zvi Mazel in Scholars
for Peace in the Middle East (SPIE) wrote
http://spme.net/articles/8471/4/18/Majority-and-Minorities-in-the-Arab-World.html. January 2012
"What the West calls the Arab Spring is actually a sociopolitical eruption in the Arab world resulting from the total failure of all the Arab states to create a unifying national narrative and establish modern egalitarian polities. The Arab states have had 90 years to find commonality in the mosaic of ethnic, national, and religious groups in each country and build political, social, and economic cooperation between them. But instead of seeking what is unifying, and constructing an egalitarian society that mobilizes its resources to defeat backwardness and improve the economy, the elites have attempted through nationalism and/or Islam to impose a unity that has always left parts of the population outside the majority community. The 90 years since the Arab states were established have been fraught with discord between the different communities, political and economic discrimination, uprisings, military coups, subversion, and conflicts between the states themselves. These conflicts have levied at least 5 million fatalities and many millions of wounded and refugees."
TO SUM UP, we have a group of Arabs who claim Jewish territory. Their claim has no validity. It isn't a state they want, anyways. They want to kill Jews. Directly and violently if they can; indirectly and by grabbing pieces of Jewish land, if they must. Mirroring the lack of civilized organization among the local Arabs in the Territories, the Arab state has shown no talent at organizing themselves into a single union or in fostering harmonious relations between the states. These facts we knew. We now have additional matters to explain. Why would the certifiers of reality, the anchormen and commentators, the academics and researchers, have backed up the Arab hoax? Why have heads of state who know that their intentions and their programs will be scrutinized by many far into the future have put their credibility on the line, knowing full well that their programs were based on a sandhill of lies?