David D. Perlmutter

'Palestine' for Dummies



I keep a special notebook handy whenever I watch a
"Palestinian" spokesperson or leader or advocate speaking or
interviewed on C-Span, the evening news or in newsprint. It
helps me keep track of many of their inanities, but the one
that is most amusing is the recurring line (which must be
featured in their spin tutorials) that "we are the only
occupied people in the world."

The great poobah Arafat himself has stated this claim in
almost every recent interview--including chats with
reporters who should know better like Bob Simon and Dan
Rather. Alas, in each case, the script is the same. A
Palestinian foghorn drops the line, and I lean forward
hoping for an honest, studied-up member of our free press to
ask: "But what about the Tibetans or the Kurds or the."

I'm still waiting. As far I can tell no journalist has ever
informed the Palestinians (or the Americans) that the former
are but only one folk in a long and mottled line of
national, ethnic, regional, religious and political groups
who, if they got their wishes and fulfilled their dreams,
would be sitting members of the United Nations.

Which leads to a follow-up question, also never asked by the
hard-hitting foreign correspondents and news anchors: why
exactly do the Palestinians deserve a state ahead of all
those others?

After all, American and Russian presidents, leaders of
Europe, everyone spends late nights worrying about how to
give the Palestinians what they want. Who does that for the
separatist Christian Blacks of Sudan--against whom oil money
has financed a Muslim-executed genocide of several million
in the last few decades?

We might ask more pointedly why should the Palestinians, who
have no separate religion, culture, history, national identity,
ethnicity,
or language from other Arabs be given a homeland ahead of say, the
Kurds (an independent ethnic nation for thousands of years.or for that
matter many
American aboriginal peoples. Likewise, David Yeagley, a
professor who teaches at the University of Oklahoma and is a
descendent of the Commanche war-chief Bad Eagle, commented
to me, "My people existed as a separate nation before the
Ottomans invaded Europe...Why aren't we getting airplay for
a homeland while some thug in Jenin is a media-darling?"

The answer is a brutal one: money talks and (as Allan
Dershowitz points out in his new book "terrorism works." The
Palestinians are unique among the world's nation wannabes in
several ways. First, they have the backing of most of the
world's oil wealth and thus the industrial nations that
kowtow in lust of it. The Gulf Caliphs caught on long ago
that in order to preserve their own corrupt, profligate,
illegal regimes they needed some perennial distraction for
their ignorant masses--why not the Jews?

Nobody has ever been so calculatingly cruel before, mind
you. My grandfather, for example, a Greek Christian, fought
in a war with Turkey in the early Twenties. The Greeks lost
the war and Turkey expelled 3,000,000 ethnic Greeks (whose
ancestors had lived there since the Bronze Age).

Greece, an impoverished country, did not torture their
compatriots by keeping them in refugee camps: they absorbed
them, the only humanitarian option possible for a humane
people.

Likewise, ethnic Germans illegally expelled from Poland and
the eastern territories at the end of World War II were
taken in by West Germany as brothers and citizens. The iron
curtain was not lined with fetid camps.

Both sets of refugees weren't happy about their fate, but
when was the last time you heard about a former Ost-German
hijacking a Russian plane or a displaced Ionian Greek
blowing up an Ankara pizza shop?

No, the Palestinians were the best investment ever made by
the Oil Sheiks and it has paid off spectacularly. (But not
for the Arab people, of course. A recent report by the U.N.
found that the total GDP [including oil] of the Arab world
does not exceed that of Spain).

Another reason the Palestinians are on the front-burner is
violence. I recall during the Gulf war a Kurdish
spokesperson was asked why the world didn't concern itself
with the national hopes of his people. His answer was
brutally cynical and absolutely correct: "We don't commit
terrorism against Europeans." The Palestinians have ignited
outrage after outrage, and each time the response of the
jelly-kneed world politicians is to pay more attention to
them and work harder to help them with cash and diplomatic
initiatives. The bloodthirsty wheel gets the grease.

Thus, terrorism pays off and is richly rewarded: His
Holiness the Dalai Lama, in contrast, will die in exile
because his philosophy does not allow him to consider
exponential violence.

Finally, the Palestinians are an accessible cause celebre of
the Left. No big deal to have your crumpets with your artsy
pals in a London teahouse in the morning and then fly down
for the afternoon to "express solidarity" with Arafat's
brownshirts. Dynamite-throwing Palestinians are chic;
Tibetan orphans are not. When was the last time you saw any
"human rights" activists rush to the southern Sudan to be
human shields between black Christian babies and a Muslim
Sudanese army aerial bombardment?

So this journalism professor and historian sits and waits
for a brave journalist to ask an obvious, fact-driven
question. And I fantasize that perhaps some foolhardy but
honest--apparently none exist -- U.N. administrator will announce
that "Frankly, there are hundreds of peoples more deserving
of a homeland and we should be helping them and ignoring the
Palestinians."

I think I have a long wait ahead of me.
+++++++++++++++++++








.

--
Polar

Polar wrote:

    >David D. Perlmutter
    >'Palestine' for Dummies


Way off-topic. Not required here; in my view, not welcome here.

PB

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

    > Polar wrote:
    > >David D. Perlmutter
    > >
    > >'Palestine' for Dummies
    > >
    >
    > Way off-topic. Not required here; in my view, not welcome here.
    > PB

Well said, rubbish snipped, and well done.
Regards
BJ


--
(Antispam, drop pants to EMail)

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:25:34 +0000, BJ
wrote:

    >Padraig Breathnach wrote:
    >> Polar wrote:
    >> >David D. Perlmutter
    >> >
    >> >'Palestine' for Dummies
    >> >
    >>
    >> Way off-topic. Not required here; in my view, not welcome here.
    >> PB
    >Well said, rubbish snipped, and well done.

You folks really don't see the connection, do you?


--
Polar

Polar schrieb:
    >
    > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:25:34 +0000, BJ
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >Padraig Breathnach wrote:
    > >
    > >> Polar wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >David D. Perlmutter
    > >> >
    > >> >'Palestine' for Dummies
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Way off-topic. Not required here; in my view, not welcome here.
    > >>
    > >> PB
    > >
    > >Well said, rubbish snipped, and well done.
    >
    > You folks really don't see the connection, do you?
    >
    > --
    > Polar

I can see a connection in that the 2nd world war led to millions of
people in Europe being dispossed. The trauma of this history was in part
the basis of the decision to form the European Union.

But maybe you can explain something about Palestine that I don't
understand- if Israel claims that the Palestine territory is Israeli
territory, then what nationality are the people who are born there,
surely they must be Israelis? If not, then what?

Tom

Polar wrote:

    > David D. Perlmutter
    > 'Palestine' for Dummies

    > I keep a special notebook handy whenever I watch a
    > "Palestinian" spokesperson or leader or advocate speaking or
    > interviewed on C-Span, the evening news or in newsprint. It
    > helps me keep track of many of their inanities, but the one
    > that is most amusing is the recurring line (which must be
    > featured in their spin tutorials) that "we are the only
    > occupied people in the world."

    > The great poobah Arafat himself has stated this claim in
    > almost every recent interview--including chats with
    > reporters who should know better like Bob Simon and Dan
    > Rather. Alas, in each case, the script is the same. A
    > Palestinian foghorn drops the line, and I lean forward
    > hoping for an honest, studied-up member of our free press to
    > ask: "But what about the Tibetans or the Kurds or the."

And the answer is: "what about them?"

The cases are _not_ parallel. There may be similarities, but
this _entire_ article seems to be an attempt to distract the
reader via smoke and mirrors. Note that Permutter does _not_
in fact directly challenge the claim in the first paragraph
-- ie: that Palestinians "are the only occupied people in the
world". One might ask why? And the answer would be because
the claim is in fact _true_.

Yes, there are all manner of tribes and nations that would
like a "homeland" of their own. There is one difference
betwen all others and the Palestinians, though: in all other
cases, the peoples in question are _citizens_ of the country
of which they are a part. It is only the Palestinians who
remain under seemingly permanent _occupation_, having
_neither_ a state of their own, _nor_ the rights of citizens
of the country that controls them.

If a time should ever come when the Israeli government should
_annex_ the occupied territories, and give to the residents
thereof full Israeli citizenship, _then_ the situation will
be the same as that of "the Tibetans or the Kurds or the ...".


Do _you_ think Perlmutter doesn't know the difference...?
Or is the article instead a bit of "big lie" propaganda?


[Perlmutter isn't here, so I feel no compulsion to discuss
this any further. I just think that "food for thought" ought
to encourage real _thought_.]


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
hate spam?

On 26 Jan 2003 17:16:31 GMT, greg byshenk
wrote:

[...]

    > It is only the Palestinians who
    >remain under seemingly permanent _occupation_, having
    >_neither_ a state of their own, _nor_ the rights of citizens
    >of the country that controls them.

[...]

A. They are not "occupied" but "administered". Big difference.

B. Not the ordinary Palestinian (who bears the brunt of the Arab
countries' conspiracy to use them as political pawns) but their
corrupt dictatorial leaders have repeatedly rejected any attempt at
negotiation. If you consult other than the pop media -- perhaps for
non-Arabic readers, go to which provides translations --
you will see that Arafat's objective has NEVER been "a state", but
rather "drive the Jews into the sea", and "from the Jordan to the
sea". That's nothing I'm making up; that is their reiterated position.
Supported by the rest of the Arab world, with Jordan and Egypt
reluctant abstainers, thanks to the Yankee dollar.

What would YOU do if a group of mad killers only a few miles from your
(porous) borders, obsessed with your total destruction, repeatedly
sent brain-washed youths to blow up your *civilians* at work, at
prayer, at school, on busses, at restaurants?

What would YOU do if that same group became a "state", therefore able
to freely buy and use against you even more deadly weapons than the
Iran-paid shipment that was intercepted at sea not long ago.

You're drawing a red herring (excuse mixed metaphors) over the rest of
the Perlmutter article, in order to put forward a failed argument over
semantic differences.


--
Polar

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:10:05 +0100, tandp wrote:

    >Polar schrieb:
    >>
    >> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:25:34 +0000, BJ
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Padraig Breathnach wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Polar wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >David D. Perlmutter
    >> >> >
    >> >> >'Palestine' for Dummies
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Way off-topic. Not required here; in my view, not welcome here.
    >> >>
    >> >> PB
    >> >
    >> >Well said, rubbish snipped, and well done.
    >>
    >> You folks really don't see the connection, do you?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Polar
    >I can see a connection in that the 2nd world war led to millions of
    >people in Europe being dispossed. The trauma of this history was in part
    >the basis of the decision to form the European Union.
    >But maybe you can explain something about Palestine that I don't
    >understand- if Israel claims that the Palestine territory is Israeli
    >territory, then what nationality are the people who are born there,
    >surely they must be Israelis? If not, then what?

The area contains some of the most sacred Biblical sites that antedate
the Arabs by thousands of years. Jews can no longer access the Tombs
of the Patriarchs, Rachel's grave, and many other sacred sites.
Stones from the Old City's sacred sites were used as latrine paving
stones by the Arabs, between 1948 and 1967. Whereas the Jews
protected the Arab "sacred site" and even made the *awful* mistake of
giving them control of the Temple Mount as a "waqf" (a
revenue-yielding charitable organization --sure!!!)

Believers in the Hebrew Bible hold that the Return was the will of
"God". I have some trouble with the concept of a capricious deity who
acts suspiciously like a cranky human being, but I have *no* trouble
with the reality that there *never* ceased to be a Jewish presence in
the Land in the thousands of years since the Expulsion.

Your point: The area was Jordanian until 1948. So can one say that
they were Jordanian? Many of them went to Jordan after they, in
conjunction with the rest of the Arab countries, failed to conquer
Israel in the 1967 war. In Jordan, their leaders stirred up so much
trouble, trying to take over the government, that the late king had
IIRC, about 20,000 of them killed.

There are, in fact, millions of Israeli Arabs who live in Israel and
enjoy the benefits of a vibrant democracy (at least until the second
Intifada sent the Israeli economy into the tank). Unfortunately a
fair number of them have been facilitating the murder-suicide bombers
from their Trojan horse position.






--
Polar

Polar wrote:
    > greg byshenk wrote:

    > > It is only the Palestinians who
    > >remain under seemingly permanent _occupation_, having
    > >_neither_ a state of their own, _nor_ the rights of citizens
    > >of the country that controls them.

    > [...]

    > A. They are not "occupied" but "administered". Big difference.

I note that you can neither actually address the point nor explain
what this supposed "big difference" might be.

Palestinians under Israeli "administration" are citizens of what
state?

[...]

The rest snipped as I have no inerest in attempting to defend the
actions taken by suicide bombers or anyone else. My point was
only to point out the (IMO) intellectually dishonest bit of
propaganda in the original article. Perlmutter can't deny the
truth of the Palestinian claim, so he plays the old shell game
and talks about something else, hoping that the reader won't
notice the trick.


    > You're drawing a red herring (excuse mixed metaphors) over the rest of
    > the Perlmutter article, in order to put forward a failed argument over
    > semantic differences.

Except for this, which is staggeringly ironic, given your first
sentence up at the top.


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
hate spam?

Polar wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:25:34 +0000, BJ
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >Padraig Breathnach wrote:
    > >
    > >> Polar wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >David D. Perlmutter
    > >> >
    > >> >'Palestine' for Dummies
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Way off-topic. Not required here; in my view, not welcome here.
    > >>
    > >> PB
    > >
    > >Well said, rubbish snipped, and well done.
    >
    > You folks really don't see the connection, do you?

To European travel? No, we (most of us) do not. (....If it HAS a
connection, which is dubious.) I'm sure there are political sites where
you can fight about such crap to your heart's content - why post it
here?

    >On 26 Jan 2003 17:16:31 GMT, greg byshenk
    >wrote:
    >[...]
    >> It is only the Palestinians who
    >>remain under seemingly permanent _occupation_, having
    >>_neither_ a state of their own, _nor_ the rights of citizens
    >>of the country that controls them.
    >[...]
    >A. They are not "occupied" but "administered". Big difference.
    >B. Not the ordinary Palestinian (who bears the brunt of the Arab
    >countries' conspiracy to use them as political pawns) but their
    >corrupt dictatorial leaders have repeatedly rejected any attempt at
    >negotiation. If you consult other than the pop media -- perhaps for
    >non-Arabic readers, go to which provides translations --
    >you will see that Arafat's objective has NEVER been "a state", but
    >rather "drive the Jews into the sea", and "from the Jordan to the
    >sea". That's nothing I'm making up; that is their reiterated position.
    >Supported by the rest of the Arab world, with Jordan and Egypt
    >reluctant abstainers, thanks to the Yankee dollar.
    >What would YOU do if a group of mad killers only a few miles from your
    >(porous) borders, obsessed with your total destruction, repeatedly
    >sent brain-washed youths to blow up your *civilians* at work, at
    >prayer, at school, on busses, at restaurants?
    >What would YOU do if that same group became a "state", therefore able
    >to freely buy and use against you even more deadly weapons than the
    >Iran-paid shipment that was intercepted at sea not long ago.
    >You're drawing a red herring (excuse mixed metaphors) over the rest of
    >the Perlmutter article, in order to put forward a failed argument over
    >semantic differences.
    >--
    >Polar


Polar.

My English is simply not good enough, I cannot follow your arguments. All I believe to know
(because the media is my only source of information) is that both sides have very similar
arguments. The only difference: It is the Big Goliath (the Israeli army, one of the best in the
world) against David, a bunch of unorganized Palestinian fighters with no sophisticated
weapons or intelligence system. They both hate each others, the fanatism is fuelled by every
new killing of (often innocent) family members. And I understand that the Palestinians feel that
they have nothing to loose any more, what is life without freedom and respect?
Rabin was the first Israeli leader that seemed on the right track, violence seemed to abate,
both sides started to talk to each other, but ...Osraeli extremism did not want a compromise
and killed Rabin. I know that many Israelis still believe that peace can be negotiated, but the
warmongers seem to dominate.
Under these circumstances, peace has no chance and violence will continue until Palestinians
are ....Sad, very sad.

RH

->Posted by Ozum (http://ozinsight.com/)
->All-in-one yEnc newsreader, scanner and freeware autoposter.

RH wrote:

    > Under these circumstances, peace has no chance and violence will continue
until Palestinians
    > are ....Sad, very sad.


Which would be no great loss IMNSHO. The "Palestinians" are simply a
"victim" group created out of the detritus of various bunches of Jordanian,
etc. refugees. There is no "Palestinian" culture, no "Palestinian" history,
no "Palestinian" achievements, in fact the term "Palestinian" did not even
wide currency until after the 1967 Arab - Israeli war, when radical Arab
propagandists started beating their dreams with phony "demands". They are
just a bunch of bothersome rabble that NO one wants, otherwise the Saudis,
etc. would have shown them some of that fabled Arab "hospitality" decades
ago and welcomed them into their countries....

--
Best
Greg

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:53:02 +0000, "RH" wrote:

    >>On 26 Jan 2003 17:16:31 GMT, greg byshenk
    >>wrote:
    >>[...]
    >>> It is only the Palestinians who
    >>>remain under seemingly permanent _occupation_, having
    >>>_neither_ a state of their own, _nor_ the rights of citizens
    >>>of the country that controls them.
    >>[...]
    >>A. They are not "occupied" but "administered". Big difference.
    >>B. Not the ordinary Palestinian (who bears the brunt of the Arab
    >>countries' conspiracy to use them as political pawns) but their
    >>corrupt dictatorial leaders have repeatedly rejected any attempt at
    >>negotiation. If you consult other than the pop media -- perhaps for
    >>non-Arabic readers, go to which provides translations --
    >>you will see that Arafat's objective has NEVER been "a state", but
    >>rather "drive the Jews into the sea", and "from the Jordan to the
    >>sea". That's nothing I'm making up; that is their reiterated position.
    >>Supported by the rest of the Arab world, with Jordan and Egypt
    >>reluctant abstainers, thanks to the Yankee dollar.
    >>What would YOU do if a group of mad killers only a few miles from your
    >>(porous) borders, obsessed with your total destruction, repeatedly
    >>sent brain-washed youths to blow up your *civilians* at work, at
    >>prayer, at school, on busses, at restaurants?
    >>What would YOU do if that same group became a "state", therefore able
    >>to freely buy and use against you even more deadly weapons than the
    >>Iran-paid shipment that was intercepted at sea not long ago.
    >>You're drawing a red herring (excuse mixed metaphors) over the rest of
    >>the Perlmutter article, in order to put forward a failed argument over
    >>semantic differences.
    >>--
    >>Polar
    >Polar.
    >My English is simply not good enough, I cannot follow your arguments. All I believe to know
    >(because the media is my only source of information) is that both sides have very similar
    >arguments. The only difference: It is the Big Goliath (the Israeli army, one of the best in the
    >world) against David, a bunch of unorganized Palestinian fighters with no sophisticated
    >weapons or intelligence system. They both hate each others, the fanatism is fuelled by every
    >new killing of (often innocent) family members. And I understand that the Palestinians feel that
    >they have nothing to loose any more, what is life without freedom and respect?
    >Rabin was the first Israeli leader that seemed on the right track, violence seemed to abate,
    >both sides started to talk to each other, but ...Osraeli extremism did not want a compromise
    >and killed Rabin. I know that many Israelis still believe that peace can be negotiated, but the
    >warmongers seem to dominate.
    >Under these circumstances, peace has no chance and violence will continue until Palestinians
    > are ....Sad, very sad.

Oh, sorry, didn't realize you were not a native speaker. We can take
this to email if you prefer, because I see that you are reflecting the
popular media rather than the reality. What you are reporting is
short on facts (no personal offense intended) and long on mythology.

Let me know.


--
Polar

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:48:55 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:

    >Polar wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:25:34 +0000, BJ
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Padraig Breathnach wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Polar wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >David D. Perlmutter
    >> >> >
    >> >> >'Palestine' for Dummies
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Way off-topic. Not required here; in my view, not welcome here.
    >> >>
    >> >> PB
    >> >
    >> >Well said, rubbish snipped, and well done.
    >>
    >> You folks really don't see the connection, do you?
    >To European travel? No, we (most of us) do not. (....If it HAS a
    >connection, which is dubious.) I'm sure there are political sites where
    >you can fight about such crap to your heart's content - why post it
    >here?

Suggestion: Either Ignore or Filter threads and posters that you do
not like. Works for me! Renders Netcopping unnecessary.


--
Polar

"Gregory Morrow" wrote:

    >RH wrote:
    >> Under these circumstances, peace has no chance and violence will continue
    >until Palestinians
    >> are ....Sad, very sad.
    >Which would be no great loss IMNSHO. The "Palestinians" are simply a
    >"victim" group created out of the detritus of various bunches of Jordanian,
    >etc. refugees. There is no "Palestinian" culture, no "Palestinian" history,
    >no "Palestinian" achievements, in fact the term "Palestinian" did not even
    >wide currency until after the 1967 Arab - Israeli war, when radical Arab
    >propagandists started beating their dreams with phony "demands". They are
    >just a bunch of bothersome rabble that NO one wants, otherwise the Saudis,
    >etc. would have shown them some of that fabled Arab "hospitality" decades
    >ago and welcomed them into their countries....

Are you trolling, or are you really such an obnoxious person as to
advocate the extermination of an entire population?

PB