The Truth Can Hurt

There are times when the truth hurts—not the subject of the statement but the maker of it. Two recent examples, one from a Republican, the other from a Democrat:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (he’s the Republican) said that Palestinians are an invented people (and as such have no legitimate territorial ambitions). His actual words were: “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, and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940’s, and I think it’s tragic.” He later asked rhetorically in defense of his remarks: “Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes. We are in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States—the current administration—tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process. Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth,” he continued. “These people are terrorists, they teach terrorism in their schools.”

This was a fine opening for his Republican challengers. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said, “That’s just stirring up trouble.” Mitt Romney, who currently (December 16) stands second or third in polls, said he agreed with Gingrich’s comments about Palestinian terrorism, but that Gingrich went too far in publicly questioning Palestinian peoplehood. “I happen to agree with most of what the Speaker said,” Romney responded. “Except by going and saying that the Palestinians are an invented people. That I think was a mistake on the Speaker’s part.” Romney warned against throwing “incendiary words into a place which is a boiling pot” and that doing so could make things harder for Israel. Rick Santorum, agreed with Romney’s comments.

You’ll note that none of these gentlemen denied the truth of what Gingrich had said, only that he shouldn’t have said it. Even Gingrich seemed to acknowledge this as his campaign later issued a statement stressing that despite his comments on Palestinian peoplehood, he still favors the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. “Newt Gingrich supports a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which will necessarily include agreement between Israel and the Palestinians over the borders of a Palestinian state,” they intoned. Remember when Republicans made hay over John Kerry’s “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” sound bite?

I began by saying that Gingrich was speaking truth; the Palestinians are an invented people. But so are we all. I’m American, my paternal ancestors emigrated from Russia; my maternal ancestors from Austria-Hungary. Before that, I have no idea. But I (and my Italo-American and Polish-American and Hispanic-American and Afro-American friends are all now Americans, proudly). Arabs who trace their ancestry to grandparents and beyond who lived in the Ottoman Empire have the same right to call themselves whatever they want, even if it gives them a political advantage.

The other truth teller was The American Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman. He delivered a speech at an event hosted by the European Jewish Union in Brussels in which he noted “the problem within Europe of tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews is largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.” Advancing peace between Israel and its neighbors was the key to addressing this issue, he said.

Jewish groups condemned the statement as one sided. In response, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said that the views expressed by Gutman were the envoy’s and not the administration’s. Gutman has said that his remarks were “misinterpreted” and that he condemns all forms of anti-Semitism.

Tempest in a teapot? Seems like it to me. The man spoke truth. Let’s pretend that there was no Zionist movement, no Balfour Declaration, that after the First World War the Ottoman empire was carved up with what we call Israel not intended as a Jewish Homeland but an Arab one, and that since 1919 it’s been Arab. Would Muslims in Europe be acting in an anti-Semitic fashion? I don’t see it. They can’t win their war in the Middle East so they take their frustrations out on Jews in France, England, Germany and the Netherlands. Gutman was right, his Jewish critics wrong. But apparently he shouldn’t have said it.