Define Palestinian: "Jew-Hater." Dennis Miller Rant.

[adios]

It was announced today that Dennis Miller's CNBC show has been canceled.

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
If Palestinian was the word for Jews "from the area," what would the name of that area have been?

The lowest estimates claim there were about 410,000 Arab Muslims and Christians in Palestine in 1893. A Zionist estimate claimed there were over 600,000 Arabs in Palestine in the 1890s. Let's not deny that the people existed and that they had a nexus with the land.

Yes, the suicide bomber was a Palestinian innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has never in the history of the world been an independent nation-state called Palestine. OTOH Palestine has been a province in assorted empires. And so the occupants of the province of Palestine (which over the centuries have included Christians, Muslims, Jews, Druze, whoever and whatever) have been legitimately called Palestinians. The occupied territories belonged to the nation-states bordering Israel, not to any political entity called Palestine since there was none. Much of the land originally occupied at the end of the Yom Kippur (Six-Day) War has been returned to the state which had sovereignty over it before the war. It should be remembered that the land was originally occupied because Israel was attacked without provocation (other than her mere existence) by her neighbors on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. The Israelis turned out to be much better at defending themselves than their attackers expected. It should also be remembered that Palestinian Arab Muslims attacked Jordan; the Jordanians haven't forgotten it.

In 1948 it was proposed that two states be created: Israel and Palestine. The idea of a Palestinian state was rejected. The feeling apparently was that it would be no problem to crush the infant state of Israel and get rid of it--which is of course not what happened. The origins of the refugee camps lay largely in the voluntary evacuation of Palestine Arabs in anticipation of the war on Israel. They left with the idea of returning immediately after the Israelis were defeated--which is not what happened. It should also be remembered that significant land in the region was purchased from Arab landowners by the Jewish National Fund in the decades prior to 1948.

Since 1948 the foundation of a Palestinian state has been on the table repeatedly, as recently as the Clinton administration. I leave you to figure out why that offer has never been accepted. We may hope that perhaps it yet will be. Most Israelis would find the creation of a Palestinian state acceptable as long as Israel continued to exist and the Jews were not driven into the sea. The question of Jerusalem is and will continue to be a vexed one.

And, yes, Menachim Begin and his fellows in the Irgun and others like him (such as the members of the Palmach including Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, and Ezer Weizman) were among the developers of modern terrorism. They did not however recruit teenagers to blow themselves up at bus stops and pizza parlors or reward the families of teenage "martyrs" with large sums of money. The origin of that idea lies elsewhere, as Andyfox indicates.

The whole world criticized the Jews for going meekly to their deaths in the gas chambers (not that they always did go meekly). However, it turned out post-1948 that Jews can defend themselves just fine and make excellent fighter pilots, tank commanders, spies, special operations officers, and, yes, terrorists. Who knew?

The Palestinians have done an excellent job of laying their case before world opinion. I would call it spewing propaganda, but that is perhaps inflammatory wording. The Israelis have been less involved (or less successful) with efforts to sway world opinion, perhaps because Jews care less about the opinion of a world which knew of the final solution and did nothing to stop it, even doing everything possible to prevent Jews from saving themselves (that is why the Irgun practiced terror against the British and the Arabs). I imagine the people of the Darfur who have been victimized by the Janjaweed don't care diddly about the opinions of a world which is standing by and letting the horror there continue unopposed.

The State of Israel was founded under legitimate international authority and has a right to exist secure in its borders and to defend itself against those who threaten that security. I personally hope to live to see a Palestinian state legitimately constituted under similar authority, Palestinians and Israelis working together to develop the economy and raise the standard of living for all people in the region. It could be argued and I have argued that Israel should never have been founded in the first place. However, it was established, it is a fait accompli, it is the light of the Middle East, and the nations of the world should support (even guarantee) its continued existence.

LOL

PS--One of these days when I move out west, I would like to meet you, andyfox.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the suicide bomber was a Palestinian innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only with respect to these two sides. Wikipedia dates suicide bombing to an incident by the Knights Templar during one of the Crusades, meaning that suicide bombing must have appeared shortly after plain old bombing. (The era of the Crusades also saw the first widespread use of the term "Palestine" in Europe, as well as "Europe"). Suicide bombing of civilians by both Christians and Muslims was endemic during the Lebanese civil war. The first wave of suicide bombings in Israel and the occupied territories appeared around 1994.

[Chris Alger]

I'm not going to respond in detail to seven of made-up history -- virtually every assertion of fact in here is false or misleading. But I'm interested in seeing if you can articulate any principle which justifies the following:

[ QUOTE ]
"The occupied territories belonged to the nation-states bordering Israel, not to any political entity called Palestine since there was none."

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me try: all states formed out of territories previously controlled by another sovereign are presumptively illegitimate because . . . well, just because.

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to respond in detail to seven of made-up history -- virtually every assertion of fact in here is false or misleading. But I'm interested in seeing if you can articulate any principle which justifies the following:

[ QUOTE ]
"The occupied territories belonged to the nation-states bordering Israel, not to any political entity called Palestine since there was none."

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me try: all states formed out of territories previously controlled by another sovereign are presumptively illegitimate because . . . well, just because.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how you got that out of what I said. The simple fact is that on the day before the start of the Six days War, the west bank was a part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, a nation-state recognized by the rest of the world. It did not belong to a state called Palestine because there was none. At the close of the Six Days War, the west bank was occupied by Israel. The Palestinians would like the west bank to become part of a Palestinian state. They do not want it returned to Jordan. That is why there has been violence directed at Jordan by Palestinians. And that is why the Jordanians are none too fond of the Palestinians--and why Jordan has quietly been of help to the US during the recent events in the Middle East.

Nations are legitimized when they are recognized by other nations. A nation which is opposed to the creation/existence of another nation refuses to recognize it. Like it or not, most of the world's nations recognize Israel which was constituted by international authority and maintain diplomatic relations with it. No nations recognize any nation-state called Palestine. There is a Palestinian Authority which represents Palestinian interests in the international arena, but there is no Palestinian state. If the borders of Israel were restored to the status quo antebellum, those occupied territories which have not already been returned would be returned to the nations of which they were once a part. None of this territory would be part of any nation called Palestine. That's a fact. My comments were not factually in error, although they may be considered misleading to the extent that they disagree with the Palestinian spin on things.

Land in the Middle East is finite, not elastic. In order to carve out a Palestinian state, the land will have to come from somewhere. By and large it will have to come from land that is part of Jordan, but is now occupied by Israel, or it will have to come from Israel itself. A new State of Palestine cannot be created ex nihilo. That's a fact.

Your paraphrase of what I said is ludicrous. New nations are created from what was once the sovereign territory of another nation all the time (see Bangladesh). What legitimates such a newly created nation is recognition and establishment of diplomatic relations by the majority of nations already in existence. If the consensus of the international community is non-recognition and particularly if recogniton is opposed by the most powerful nations, then the would-be state is not legitimate.

LOL

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There has never in the history of the world been an independent nation-state called Palestine.

[/ QUOTE ]

A significant number of states existing today gained independence after being "non existent" since the dawn of time. The notion that none of these states should have independence today because ..they never had it in the past would be preposterous, not to say idiotic. (Should I bore you with examples? I'll start from the letter A -- and give you Albania. Under the letter U there's a country you all know.)


[ QUOTE ]
Palestine has been a province in assorted empires. And so the occupants of the province of Palestine (which over the centuries have included Christians, Muslims, Jews, Druze, whoever and whatever) have been legitimately called Palestinians.

[/ QUOTE ]
This goes against the very notion of national self-identification and the modern nation state, as we know it. It is interesting, though, that the rhetoric used by pro-Zionist "theorists" against the idea of a Palestinian nationhood turns against the idea of Israel! Just replace names.

[ QUOTE ]
It should also be remembered that Palestinian Arab Muslims attacked Jordan; the Jordanians haven't forgotten it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are referring to the September 1970 wholesale massacre of Palestinian Arabs by King Hussein's Jordanian army, then you are completely reversing reality. It was a massacre (and an attack) by the King's loyal troops from Jordan against the Palestinians in Jordan.

That was the infamous Black September. I have no idea what else you might be talking about.


[ QUOTE ]
The origins of the refugee camps lay largely in the voluntary evacuation of Palestine Arabs in anticipation of the war on Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I note with amusement your use of the term "Palestine Arabs" which strains your effort to avoid the simple and self-identifying term Palestinain Arabs.

But, seriously, the refusal to recognize the historical fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were forced to leave, terrorized into leaving their native land, in fact, is quite telling of your point of view. You are asking us to believe that the inhabitants of a land who have lived there for generations upped and left without any other reason than their advance knowledge that the Israelis would win the war! Amazing, simply amazing.

(And even if that's why they left, because they feared that the Israelis would win, what did they have to fear from the Israelis? You think that the Palestinian men, women and children who left should have been afraid of victorious Israelis? ...See? I told you, truth is impossible to keep hidden no matter how hard you try.)

But enough with the ahistorical hogwash. For a much more informed understanding of the question of Palestinian identity and how it has suffered under the onslaught of Zionist propaganda ("a land without a nation for a nation without a land" - yeah, right) one would be advised to check out Keith Whitelam's "The Invention Of Ancient Israel And The Silencing Of Palestinian History" and, of course, Norman Finkelstein's "Image And Reality Of The Israel-Palestinian Conglict".

[TransientR]

Miller's views have grown increasingly extreme and disturbing over the years. IMO watching him has been unbearably for some time.

Frank

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the suicide bomber was a Palestinian innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only with respect to these two sides. Wikipedia dates suicide bombing to an incident by the Knights Templar during one of the Crusades, meaning that suicide bombing must have appeared shortly after plain old bombing. (The era of the Crusades also saw the first widespread use of the term "Palestine" in Europe, as well as "Europe"). Suicide bombing of civilians by both Christians and Muslims was endemic during the Lebanese civil war. The first wave of suicide bombings in Israel and the occupied territories appeared around 1994.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. Anyone can write anything and post it on the site. Second of all, you are clearly not in a position to question other people's command of facts.

The information on the Templars below is from Paula Stiles who lists her own credentials:

Yes, you can go ahead and quote me with attribution.
I've done a Masters thesis on Templar arabization and
islamicization in Palestine and I just finished a PhD
thesis that studied Templar relations with
non-Christians in Spain, so I guess you could call me
some sort of expert on the subject. The Wikipedia
quote in question is: "During the Crusades, the
Knights Templar destroyed one of their own ships,
killing 140 Christians in order to kill ten times as
many Muslims." Unsurprisingly, the author of this
passage gives no source.

I've been studying the Templars for ten years and I've
never heard of this incident. Not only is the number
questionable (140 people seems a lot for one Templar
ship and 1400 seems even more questionable), but it
doesn't reflect Templar attitudes toward either
Christians or Muslims. Killing, or causing the death
of, a Christian would result in expulsion from the
Order, which meant that any Templar officer who
ordered such an act would spend the rest of his days
in a tiny cell in Chateau Pelerin. Nor were Templars
all that enthusiastic about killing Muslims. They
generally chose negotiation and even payment of
tribute, where they could, over fighting. This was one
reason why they were so often accused of being in
league with the Muslims.

Finally, I don't see how you could have a suicide
bombing by Latin Christians in the Crusades era since
the crusaders didn't possess explosives (the
Byzantines held on tight to the secret of "greek
fire"). I've heard of one Muslim method of blowing up
a ship with a primitive torpedo, but I doubt the
Latins knew about it. It would therefore be rather
difficult to blow oneself up when one didn't have the
technology to do it. And the Templars certainly
wouldn't have done it anyway since they were good
Christian monks and considered suicide (let alone
murder of Christians) to be a mortal sin.

For the Templars' attitudes toward suicide, asceticism
and harming other Christians, see The Rule of the
Templars, which has been translated into English by
Judith Upton-Ward. For their traditional hostility
toward the Assassins (shared by the Hospitallers), see
William of Tyre for the infamous killing of the
Assassin envoy in the 1170s and Jean de Joinville for
the Assassin attempt (thwarted by the Grand Masters of
the Temple and Hospital) to intimidate King Louis VIII
of France in the mid-13th century.

In a separate email Paula Stiles also said:

Um...what, exactly, do you mean by "bombing"? Do you
mean suicide attacks? Then, the answer would be an
emphatic "no". While, in theory, the Templars were
always supposed to be ready to die for Christ, they
were also always short of resources, including
manpower, and conserved them with great practicality.
The group ethic (as set out in the Order's Rule)
strongly opposed any individual acts that might result
in one's own deaths or those of others, as well as any
loss of property.


Also, the Templars held great hostility toward the
Assassins to a large extent because they found the
Assassin use of assassination-suicides as a way to
control through terror incomprehensible and
reprehensible. This would also indicate that the
Templars not only didn't use the tactic, but found it
unacceptable both for themselves and for their
enemies.



LOL

[LittleOldLady]

For the Templars' attitudes toward suicide, asceticism
and harming other Christians, see The Rule of the
Templars, which has been translated into English by
Judith Upton-Ward. For their traditional hostility
toward the Assassins (shared by the Hospitallers), see
William of Tyre for the infamous killing of the
Assassin envoy in the 1170s and Jean de Joinville for
the Assassin attempt (thwarted by the Grand Masters of
the Temple and Hospital) to intimidate King Louis VIII
of France in the mid-13th century.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correction: it should be Louis IX.

LOL

[andyfox]

Thank you for your kinds words at the end of your post. It would be my pleasure to meet you as well.

We have been over this ground here quite a bit here, and you make your case quite eloquently, so just a few comments.

Of course there was no "independent nation state." So what? A nation-state was something for Europeans to recognize. Natives were not smart enough, not westernized enough, not modern enough, to have a European style nation-state. Zionism sold itself to the British as an agent of Westernism, an anti-Oriental thing, to modernize and remake Palestine in Britain's image.

The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of Palestine were Muslim Arabs. They rejected the partition of what they looked at as their homeland in 1948. From their standpoint, an outside agency, prejudiced to looking at them as backward and undeserving, was seen as taking what was 100% theirs and offering them the ability to keep part of it.

I agree with Abba Eban when he said that the Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. My disagreement with the original poster was with Miller's assertion that the Palestinian people never existed, the exact attitude that led to the current problems. I'm not saying those current problems don't have roots in mistakes, misperceptions, prejudices and selfishness on both sides. But the problem originated when the Zionists refused to acknowledge the existence of the Palestinians, preferring, instead, to deal about the Palestinians with the British.