Siegman on the Middle East

In his well-written article on the inevitability of an independent Palestinian state (Commentary, Dec. 28), Henry Siegman bases his argument on an absurdly fallacious premise, that “at the end of the 20th century it is inconceivable that a people with its own culture, faith and political identity can remain under permanent occupation by a power utterly foreign to it. The days when dreams of such permanent foreign rule can be entertained are gone forever.”

Indeed? Siegman and I must be living on different planets. The most obvious example of the absurdity of this statement can be found in the very area he writes about--the Kurds who are subjugated and occupied not by one but by three foreign powers--Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Other examples are ubiquitous: Chechnyans ruled by Russians, natives of East Timor oppressed and massacred by Indonesia, Tibet occupied by China, Hutus ruled by minority Tutsis in Burundi and Rwanda, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Basques in Spain, etc.

It is a strange and inexplicable fact that all of these oppressed ethnicities have apparently been forgotten, even by scholars like Siegman, who certainly should know better. The only concern the world seems to have, now that South Africa is no longer in the news, is the Palestinian grievance against the Israelis.

SI FRUMKIN

Studio City