About Me

Name: Yehoshua
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Kashrut Vs. The Corrida

Posted by Yehoshua on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:57:11 PM
Kashrut Vs. The Corrida

by Gerald A. Honigman





I love my “kid” brother, Dr. Joseph, for lots of reasons. Among those which truly stand out is the decision he made while still in high school to become a vegetarian.

Now, before some of you shake your heads and laugh, I have a question for you...

Have you ever visited a slaughter house to see what animals go through to satisfy your and my own eating habits?

I haven’t...but I’ve read enough to know it’s truly horrible.

As a fisherman, I do know what taking another life means...so (for that and other reasons) indulge very carefully and deliberately--yet my own practices are not as good as they should be either.

True, in nature, animals are often eaten alive while they’re still struggling. But we’re humans and we do have other choices.

Okay...this article is not about laying a guilt trip. What it is about is trying to find the best compromise. And that brings me to the real topic of today’s discussion, a contrast between how Jews and others who have not become vegetarians view the worth of G_d’s other creatures.

Over the years, I have often heard Gentiles ask questions about what “kosher” is all about. On a number of occasions, the subject has been a source of ignorant comedy as well--another way to poke fun at those “unbelieving” Jews.

To explain that the source of Kashrut goes back to the same source which gave the world such things as the Ten Commandments and such (i.e. the Hebrew Bible, aka “Old Testament") might help a bit, but--for a number of reasons--usually not much.

While Kashrut--the rules for keeping kosher--involves a number of different issues, for the sake of this discussion, I will just focus on the Hebraic tradition of treating G_d’s creatures with compassion.

Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel here, please look at these excerpts from Aaron Gross’s Tikkun Magazine article, “When Kosher Isn’t Kosher,” in the Vol. 20, No. 2, March/April 2005 edition:

...Few contemporary rabbis have articulated the moral foundations of kashrut for so many of today’s current Jewish leaders as Rabbi Samuel Dresner. In his book Keeping Kosher, he reminds us that in the biblical vision, “permission to eat meat is understood as a compromise, a divine concession.” The Rabbinic tradition has taught that human beings were originally vegetarian in the garden of Eden on the basis of Genesis 1:29, “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food.” God’s original plan contained no slaughterhouses; animal slaughter was only reluctantly allowed after the flood (as in Noah...), and this slaughter had to be regulated.

As Dresner explains, “Jews are permitted to eat meat, but they must learn to have reverence for the life they take.” The laws of shechita (ritual slaughter) are the concrete manifestation of this required reverence. However, it also is now evident that kosher slaughter can be turned on its head, becoming among the cruelest methods of ending life. As Rabbi Barry Schwartz, who sits on the task force on kashrut for the Central Conference of American Rabbis, noted upon viewing PETA’s (People For The Ethical treatment of Animals) video, “If this is kosher, then we have a big problem.”

Fortunately, Rabbi Schwartz has been joined by many others, and, in a remarkable demonstration of spontaneous Jewish pluralism, these voices have come from across the Jewish spectrum. Rabbi Raphael Rank, the President of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, fired off a letter to all Conservative Rabbis shortly after the AgriProcessors’s story appeared, calling PETA’s investigation “a welcome, though unfortunate service to the Jewish community.” He argued that “[w]hen a company purporting to be kosher violates the prohibition against tza’ar ba’alei hayyim, causing pain to one of God’s living creatures, that company must answer to the Jewish community, and ultimately, to God...”

PETA (whose methods I sometimes have problems with) had gone under cover in a major kosher slaughter house and found some very disturbing practices there as well. Despite this, the latter still received higher marks than most non-kosher plants.

The point is--given the proclivity to imperfection all humans wind up displaying--Jews, for a very long time, knew what they needed to be striving for in these regards...and still do, even when they miss the mark.

Animals had to rest on the Sabbath as well as their masters. The idea of them being slaughtered just for sport--as in the arena--or trophy was forbidden. Jews cannot mix meat and dairy products because of the command not to seethe (boil, cook) a kid (young goat) in its own mother’s milk. It was bad enough that man was now eating meat--but cooking it in its own mother’s milk was beyond acceptance. The acidic process of digestion was perceived as a method of cooking, and so forth.

Okay, now let’s shift gears a bit.

A few days ago I read about a 16-year old matador who slew about a half dozen bulls in one day in the corrida. In Spain alone, tens of thousands of bulls are slaughtered this way each year.

Again, since I am against duplicating wheels, check out these paraphrases below from the CATCA (Campaign Against The Cruelty To Animals) site:

Before specially crossbred bulls get sent into the corrida to be slowly tormented and tortured with spears thrust into them by horsemen and such to weaken them even further prior the matador’s final execution, they are not released into the ring until…

--they are kept in the dark for days without food or water, given laxatives, hit with a large sack in the ribs and kidneys to weaken them;

--vaseline is placed on eyes to blur vision;

--cotton is stuck in the nose and throat to inhibit breathing;

--testicles are often stabbed with knitting needles;

--then, if the bull has then become too weak after all the preparation, turpentine is dropped on the testicles so it appears furious when it enters the ring (due to the burning sensation); it has been reported that the door which opens is deliberately dropped on the bull’s head as well in these regards.

Now, keep in mind that this does not even take into account what the horses go through as they often get gored and disemboweledduring this human “sport.”

Note that all of the above takes place in countries whose own religion often likes to lecture others about its superiority--frequently calling everyone else non-believers (and worse). Additionally, such “sports” as male chicken and dog-fighting are popular in such “superior” nations as well.

Yep...I recall even some “friends” of mine (let alone others) over the decades joking about kosher food and such...simply another way to ridicule those “G_d-killers.”

Just think about that a bit...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Syria...Seriously(Take # 2)

Posted by Yehoshua on Sunday, February 07, 2010 12:30:46 PM


 

Syria . . . Seriously (Take # 2)

 by Gerald A. Honigman

 

 Back in 2005, I wrote an earlier version of this current analysis.

 Over the years, the Syrian front in the Arab-Israeli conflict has wound up--due mostly to deadly Syrian shenanigans--being placed on the back burner, as far as American State Department priorities in the region were concerned.

 Not that the Foggy Folks didn’t have “good intentions"--as far as the Syrians were concerned--but the latter were just too darn honest to even provide the facade of cooperation which, for public relations and the American Congress, would have been convenient to have before the squeeze was placed on the Jews once again.

 Syria has never recognized the independence of Lebanon, and considers it along with at least Jordan (eastern “Palestine"), Israel, and itself to simply be part of Greater Syria. The break-up of the Ottoman Turkish Empire (which controlled much of the region for about five centuries) after World War I reinvigorated such schemes as well. Manipulations, assassinations, and so forth in Lebanon are linked to this, as is the 1970 partial invasion of Jordan to support the PLO’s attempted overthrow of the Hashemites there, support of one proxy group after another vis-a-vis Israel, etc. and so forth. Only Israel’s mobilization in the north in Black September prevented further Syrian action, very likely saving King Hussein’s derriere in the process.

 In subsequent years, even though Israel was assured after the June ‘67 War via UNSC Resolution 242 that it would not have to return to the suicidal armistice lines imposed upon it in 1949 which made it a mere 9-15 miles wide in its strategic waist, but would receive secure, defensible real borders instead, over time such assurances were soon forgotten. My article, Resolution To Kill The Resolution, details this unfortunate turn of events.

With the appointing of James Baker III as Secretary of State during best pal, President George H.W. Bush’s presidency, Syria was assured that it would get the same deal Egypt got from Israel...a total withdrawal from lands Arabs repeatedly used to launch invasion, death, and destruction from--this time, the Golan Heights.

Only Syria’s unceasing machinations in Lebanon, support of the oppostion against America in Iraq, alliance with Iran, and so forth eased the pressure from Foggy Bottom on the Jews to hand themselves over as a sacrificial lamb.

Nowadays, things have now taken an even more serious turn for the worse.

Washington and the Foggy Folks have frequently shifted back and forth between the Syrian and Palestinian Arab tracks as events dictated. President Obama is on record supporting a total Israel withdrawal to the ‘49 armistice lines and agreeing to being inundated by millions of alleged Arab refugees. Those are key elements of the alleged Saudi (of the grave) Peace Plan that Mr. President has repeatedly said Israel would be crazy not to accept.

Subsequently, Israel’s “peace” partners among the Palestian Authority have refused to budge on any territorial or other compromise and have insisted that Israel simply cave in to all of their own demands. And they have been supported in this by the current American administration and, of course, the Foggy Folks (who fought President Truman over the rebirth of Israel in the first place).

Since Israel recently elected leaders who have so far resisted American demands for it to take steps towards suicide, negotiations between Israel and the good cops of the latter-day Arafatians of Mahmoud Abbas are at a standstill. The bad cops of Hamas are simply biding their time...

So, it’s now Syria’s turn again.

Arieh O’Sullivan reported in The Media Line on February 5th that the American ambassador--withdrawn after the Syrian’s involvement in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri back in 2005, is now set to return to Damascus, and at no cost to the latter.

Given the fact that the current American Administration is already on record calling Israel crazy to refuse such a “deal” which promises Arab good behavior in return for it giving away all of the concrete, essential tangibles necessary for defense and mere survival, James Baker’s old promise to the Butcher of Damascus will undoubtedly now be offered to his son.

To understand all of this in greater detail, some more history is in order. So please bear with me...

I just couldn’t get the image out of my head.

There she was, I guess about seven or eight years ago now, Ashleigh Banfield--MSNBC’s rising star--standing before a statue of the great Muslim warrior, Salah al Din, in Syria, glorifying the Arab claim that they were his modern descendants in the fight against Jews and other allegedly new crusaders in the region.

Arab tyrants love to make such claims. Syria’s twin butchers to the east are famous for this as well. The late Saddam, thanks to America, now of spider hole fame, loved to present himself as Saladdin reincarnate.

And poor Salah al Din is rolling in his grave.

A Kurd from northern Iraq (where Arabs later gassed and massacred Kurds by the tens of thousands), he indeed led the fight for the Dar ul-Islam against the crusaders in the Holy Land.

But those were the relatively early centuries after the Arabs burst out of the Arabian Peninsula, spreading their Caliphal imperial conquests in all directions. And despite the Abbasid Revolution (largely supported by the Mawali) which toppled the Damascus-based Arabist Umayyads over such issues, non-Arab converts to Islam still sought to win equality in Arab eyes (and escape special taxes) by toeing, especially well, the Islamic line.

Listening to the Muslim but non-Arab Iranian President’s remarks about Israel’s destruction, some things change...and some things never change.  One of the best ways for non-Arab Muslims to pass the ultimate litmus test is to out Arab the Arabs in Jew hatred.

Some of the worst hate-mongers on campus that I have encountered were from Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and so forth. That was the ticket to stand tall alongside Arabs in the Muslim Student Organization, etc.

So, while Iranians have suppressed and slaughtered Muslim Arabs in oil-rich Khuzistan ("Arabistan"), Muslim Kurds, Muslim Baluchis, Muslim Azeris, and others as well in the name of their own national interests, their religious credentials remain impeccable (without getting into the Shi’a-Sunni dispute). Supporting Hizbullah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad in the struggle to exterminate the Jew of the Nations (whose population includes tens of thousands of Iranian Jews who fled for their lives), insures this as well.

Back to Salah al Din…

In 1968, the Kurdish nationalist, Ismet Cherif Vanly, wrote The Syrian ‘Mein Kampf’ Against The Kurds (Amsterdam). So I couldn’t help feeling sickened by seeing Banfield endorsing the Arab line while standing in front of a mounted statue of that great warrior. If he only knew what the Arabs would be doing to his own people centuries later...long after their conversion to Islam, and still going on as I write this article: Kurdish children being forced to sing songs praising their Arab identity in schools; Kurds slaughtered for nothing more than seeking to be able to retain their own cultural identity and speak their own language while obtaining some semblance of equality; and so forth.

And a bit more perspective is in order as well.

One needs to keep all of this in mind when the murderous, despotic junk heap broadcasting from Syria leads the pack in attacking those allegedly “racist Zionists” who have made Arabic the second official language of their state, have Arabs who side with Hamas as representatives in the Knesset and leading demonstrations at Hebrew University, and have, as citizens, the freest Arabs living anywhere in the Middle East. And this despite the fact that many of the latter do indeed compose a potentially dangerous fifth column.

But, I’m drifting a bit...so let’s return to the implications of the pending return of the American ambassador to Damascus.

Despite Syria’s deadly hegemonic attitudes and actions towards what it sees as its Lebanese “provinces;” despite its appalling treatment of Kurds, native Jews, and others as well; despite its support for terrorists undermining Iraq’s attempt at democracy; despite the great likelihood that many of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction found a home in Syria; despite Damascus’ support of major terrorist organizations whose aim is the destruction of the Jew of the Nations and giving safe haven to those organizations within its own borders; despite its record as mass slaughterer of any and all who dissent, author of the infamous “Hama Solution;” etc., etc., etc....America is now poised to squeeze the Jews again--not Syrian Arabs.

Had Syria not opposed America in Iraq and blatantly assassinated independent-minded Lebanese, the Foggy Folks would have indeed be pressing forward with former Secretary of State James Baker’s pledge to Assad the First of a total Israeli retreat from the Golan Heights. President George W. Bush made Baker (whose law firm represents the Saudis against American victims of 9/11), his Special Middle East Envoy. Since I’ve written much about Baker’s Jew problem elsewhere, I’ll drop it for now.

Recall that the Heights were part of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine until Britain and France did some imperial trading, and that the territory changed hands often throughout the centuries. It was not exclusively Arab, and Jews too had a long history there.

Recall as well how Syria used the Heights to rain terror on Israelis below prior to the 1967 War--which it also largely instigated.

And, lastly, also remember that Israel offered to return all of the territories right after that war in return for peace treaties and was offered the infamous “3 Nos of Khartoum” in response. It got attacked on Yom Kippur from those Heights again in 1973--Arab tanks rolling towards Israel proper. The Jew of the Nations came close to being destroyed that year. Since then, Syria has once again built up its own massive arsenal of missiles, aircraft, tanks, chemical weapons, and such, and is best buddies with a soon-to-be nuclear Iran which has pledged to eradicate Israel.

In earlier years, Israel’s current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already offered an almost complete return of the Heights in exchange for peace. The exception covered a tiny stretch of land protecting Israel’s water sources. But that was, of course, too much to ask of Arabs who--after all--are so understanding of their own national competitors’ needs. I’m sure, for example, that if the situation was reversed, and it was Israel who repeatedly attacked Syria and lost territory as a result of its aggression, that Syria would make a similar offer to the Jews.

Sure… And would you like to buy a bridge I’m selling?

Right now Israel controls the passes Syrian tanks would use to roll down hill to kill Jews.

Right now Israeli artillery can send Baby Assad and friends a calling card right from the Heights. Right now Syrian artillery and gunners can’t do this anymore to Jews. Right now Israelis are assured that an enemy sworn to its death will not be in control of its water supply.

And, also right now, America must finally rid itself of the Arabist State Department practice of constantly twisting the arm of its beleaguered friend to make suicidal concessions to such deadly and obnoxious adversaries, all of whom refuse to recognize the rights of anyone but themselves in the region. Like the Arabs, the Foggy Folks joined in the rejection of the very right of Israel to even exist in 1948...for a number of reasons, blatant anti-Semitism included.

Despite the Obama Administration’s openly admitted preferences on this subject, as with the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (aka, the West Bank--only as a result of British 20th century imperialism), a territorial compromise--which meets the needs of both parties to the conflict--must be reached on the Golan as well.

Think of all the territories that have exchanged hands because of wars. America holds many territories itself because of this...not to mention others as well.

The national security requirements of the tiny sliver that is Israel on a world map need to be taken no less seriously...especially since, unlike the super power, three thousand mile-wide America (largely protected by vast oceans and with fairly reasonable neighbors) and others whose demands often extend hundreds--if not thousands--of miles away from home, those of the Jew of the Nations involve what’s going on right on its very own doorstep and in its virtual backyard.

Syrian Arabs have watched closely as Israel’s alleged moderate peace partners in the Palestinian (Arab) Authority took the new American President’s cue, dug their heals in, and openly proclaimed that Israel must do all the giving while they do all the taking in negotiations.

Damascus has excellent reasons to assume equal treatment in these regards.

Israel must offer its hand in peace, but must not cave in to another yet another version of Chamberlain’s “peace for our time"--whether on the West Bank, the Golan, or elsewhere.

 Dr. Sherkoh Abbas, of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, has written part of the Foreword to my new book, The Quest For Justice In The Middle East...The Arab-Israeli Conflict In Greater Perspective ( http://q4j-middle-east.com ) Not that it would do any good given the realities at work here, but perhaps it should also be required reading in Washington among the various powers that

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mel Gibson & The Jews

Posted by Yehoshua on Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:23:21 AM

The Movie Mel Should have Made...
by Gerald A. Honigman



Mel Gibson has a new movie out, “Edge of Darkness.”

I like Mel Gibson as an actor and director.

I have enjoyed much of his work, and one movie, in particular, was truly amazing.

“They may take our lives, but they may never take our freedom!” Thus, allegedly, spoke William Wallace, a.k.a. Mel Gibson’s Braveheart. No doubt, the movie was hauntingly spectacular and led me to admire the Scots even more than I did already. Questions regarding the historicity of the movie, nonetheless, caused quite a commotion. Ronald Hamowy of the Department of History at the University of Alberta summed it up this way in his June 28, 1995 comments:

Frankly, this movie has about as much merit historically...as one of the countless dubbed Italian films about Hercules battling the tyrants…

Regardless, William Wallace was a true 13th century Scottish hero, and Mr. Gibson’s passion for the freedom of this people and sympathy for their cause shined through. And, as we read the above words of Braveheart, we’ll soon turn to another quote--but, this one by a leader of another oppressed people (one which Gibson obviously hates) fighting, over a thousand years earlier, yet another conqueror of much of the known world.

The Roman-sponsored historian, Josephus, detested his fellow Judaean countrymen who took up arms against the Roman Empire. He saw them as fighting a war that could not be won, leading their nation to ruin. He aligned himself with the future Emperor instead. So he wrote what he wrote not out of admiration. Keep this in mind as we progress here…

Indeed, the situation Josephus feared was the same as if Lithuania had taken on the Soviet Union in the latter’s heyday of power.

Yet, the Judaeans (Jews) did just that--and kept the struggle going on for about two hundred years. Judaea Capta coins can now be found in museums all over the world and were issued by Rome to commemorate its victory. The Arch of Titus stands tall in Rome to this very day as well and, among other things, displays Romans carrying away spoils of the Temple and Judaean captives.

So, the historicity of the Jews’ struggle is beyond reasonable doubt and is highlighted by the Romans themselves.

We’ll examine some of the speech of Eleazar ben Yair, leader of the last major band of Judaean warriors to hold out after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C..E., gave to his band of fighters and their families atop the fortress of Masada overlooking the Dead Sea just prior to the final Roman assault. Let’s turn first, however, to another brief but telling quote from the contemporary Roman historian, Tacitus, who, like Josephus, also lived during the time of the Jews’ struggle and had lots to say about it as well:

"It inflamed Vespasian’s resentment that the Jews were the only nation that had not yet submitted (Vol.II, The Works Of Tacitus)."

After Masada fell in 73 C.E., when the Emperor Hadrian decided to turn the Temple Mount into a pagan shrine, it was the grandchildrens’ turn to take on their mighty pagan conquerors. And, again, Roman historians, such as Dio Cassius, recorded the second revolt (132-135 C.E.) as well.

Among other things, the entire Twelfth Roman Legion was wiped out before the leader of this second major quest for freedom by the Jews, Shimon Bar Kochba, fell at Betar. Detailed letters from him to his troops have been discovered as were the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the latter is the War Scroll which speaks of the conflict between..."the Sons of Light vs. the Sons of Darkness,” and so forth.

Let’s listen now to Josephus, Book VII, Wars Of The Jews:

“Now as he (Eleazar) judged this to be the best thing they could do in their present circumstances, he gathered the most courageous...and encouraged them ....by a speech: ‘Since we, long ago...resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than G_d himself...the time is come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice...’”

Gibson should now listen very carefully. Here’s Eleazar ben Yair...

“We were the very first that revolted from them, and we are the last that fight against them (see Tacitus’ quote above); and I cannot but esteem it as a favour that G_d hath granted us that it is still in our power to die bravely, in a state of freedom...”

Masada’s defenders committed mass suicide—families and all—rather than fall into Roman hands.

While a few scholars debate the details, practically everything else that has been excavated, discovered otherwise, and so forth testify to Josephus’ trustworthiness--so there is no reason to doubt him here.

Masada is an amazing place to visit. The Roman camps, ramp, etc. are all still all there just as Josephus described them 2,000 years ago. And remember, Josephus was no fan of those Jews atop the fortress.

So, let’s just say that if Mel’s Braveheart’s alleged quote about freedom can be taken as history,then there’s certainly no problem with Eleazar’s. Indeed, William Wallace has nothing over Eleazar ben Yair...or, Braveheart II, the movie Mel should have made. Indeed, he may have--if not for that “Jew thing” he has such a problem with.

So here’s the real reason for this update of my much earlier article...

Mel Gibson used his millions several years back to produce a film, “The Passion of Christ,” which deals with a topic which has caused millennia of suffering for Jews. Among other sore points, Gibson included the verse from Matthew 27:25, “His blood be upon us and our children,” whereby the Jews allegedly take blame for the death of Jesus. It has been used to justify Jewish suffering in the minds of many millions of Christians over the millennia.

The Pope, Reverend Billy Graham, and thousands of other Christian religious figures applauded the movie and saw no problems with it. “It is as it was” stated Pope John Paul II…

From a Christian theological perspective, those words are acceptable. But theology isn’t necessarily history, and there is now sound historical scholarship--with no theological agenda to promote either way--which puts much of what “it is as it was” in serious doubt. And much of it has been conducted by objective Christian scholars.

While I have admittedly not seen “The Passion of Christ” (I refuse to endorse or support the work of an anti-Semite), I have closely analyzed its topic through a scholar’s eyes while doing doctoral studies and later on as well. I have also watched the trailers to the movie and other clips which have shown me all that I need to see.

Let’s just say that what Mel claims to know as “historical truth” is, at the very least, debatable.

Jews, obviously, have theological differences with their Christian friends. Hopefully these differences can be discussed without fear of inquisitions, public disputations, forced conversions, and often much worse which accompanied those differences in the past.

Given those other “truths” which came out of a drunken Gibson’s mouth not long ago regarding Jews, however, I can easily see him participating in those above activities.

Jews could never deify any man, Messiah or otherwise. Roman historians wrote of this strange people who “worship a god no man can see and who refuse to even deify their caesars.” But this is a whole other debate.

The issue of the Jews’ alleged role as “G_d-killer,” which Gibson felt just had to be resurrected yet again in his film, has caused so much pain, suffering, and death to Jews over the centuries, that it’s hard to believe that this man, so sensitive to the plight of Scots, felt that there was nothing better to spend his wealth on. More theologically-based anti-Semitism was not needed out of Tinseltown.

While there are sophisticated ways of interpreting the New Testament’s Gospel of John, for example, when the average person reads him allegedly quoting Jesus calling the Jews (not just Pharisees, etc.) “sons of the Devil, doing your father’s deeds,” what impact can this sort of teaching have? Gibson evidently loves and endorses it. Indeed, he showed the devil incarnate weaving in and out of “his children” as they cried out for Jesus’s blood in his movie.

Is it also a surprise, therefore, that one of the first pictures in Europe of a Jew is entitled, “Aaron, Son of the Devil?”

Even the Renaissance sculptor, Michelangelo, put Devil’s horns on Moses’ head… regardless of the whitewashing some have tried to do with that as well, calling them “rays of light” instead. I’m sure that that’s what the average Gentile thought/thinks of when viewing that piece of artwork. And I’m also sure that Gibson will invite me to his Passover seder.

Is it, thus, really any stretch to next learn of untold thousands of Jews being massacred for “poisoning Christian wells” and causing the Bubonic Plague...and countless other tragedies committed in the name of the Christian “Prince of Peace” encountered as a result of such religious enlightenment?

The road to Auschwitz was indeed very carefully paved over the millennia.

After the famous “Passion Plays” throughout Europe, it was common for Christians to get drunk and next go after the local “G-d Killers.” Deadly massacres and pogroms were especially common around Easter time. Was/is that what Mel missed/misses?

While he claims to not share the anti-Semitism of his father, after that drunken episode with the policeman in which the most obnoxious of anti-Semitism spewed forth from his vocal cords, please forgive me if I call him a liar. One could argue that Jews have too long been the Suffering Servant of G_d ( there’s more than one way to interpret Biblical passages) to remain silent over this filmed passion play.

Think of the zeal Gibson showed for the struggle of an oppressed people in Braveheart. Now contrast this with his willing ignorance (and much worse) regarding this subject vis-a-vis the Jews--a struggle in which Jesus (Joshua) of Nazareth, regardless of how one views him, was caught up in and was crucified for--like thousands of Judaeans both before and after him--in his people’s fight for freedom against their Roman tormentors.

Yes, Gibson is a fine actor and a talented man. And any Jews who support him and his newest movie deserve whatever he wishes for them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

President Obama's Old/New "Peace" Plan

Posted by Yehoshua on Friday, January 22, 2010 2:26:44 PM
 

President Obama's Old/New Plan: Resolution To Kill The Resolution

by Gerald A. Honigman

     The headline of Avi Yellin's article in January 22, 2010's  Israel National News/Arutz Sheva read , "Mitchell Pitches a New 5-Point Plan for Middle East Negotiations."

    The story reported that, according to Arab sources linked to alleged "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas's latter-day Arafatians of Fatah and quoted by the London-based Arabic newspaper al-Hayat, President Obama's Special Middle East Envoy, George Mitchell is unveiling a five-point plan to force parties back to the negotiating table and press Israel to retreat back to the '49 armistice line--not border-- which existed between Israel and Jordan until Israel was attacked by the latter in 1967.

     Recall that President Obama had previously endorsed the earlier Saudi "Peace" (of the grave) Plan prior to his election and afterwards as well. He repeatedly stated that Israel would be crazy to reject such "peace."

     In a nutshell, that plan calls for Israel to retreat to its '49 armistice lines on all fronts (think the Golan Heights, from which Syria bombarded Israeli civilians for decades, as well as Judea and Samaria--aka, only as of the 20th century, the "West Bank), making it 9-15 miles wide in its strategic waist, where most of its population and industry are located, again. Additionally, it must next accept millions of allegedly "returning" jihadi Arab refugees raised on murderous Jew-hatred for decades. Recall that more Jews fled from "Arab" lands than vice-versa after a half dozen Arab states attacked a resurrected, microscopic Israel in 1948. In return, Israel supposedly will get a vague "normalization"--after giving up all the concrete tangibles minimally required just to be able to exist if the Arabs renege for whatever reason they will surely find.

     While I didn't see mention of the returning refugees in the short, new article mentioned above, recall that this stipulation was at first played down years ago as well. Nonetheless, it remains an integral part of that plan to this very day--one which Abbas insists he will never retreat from.

     The reality, of course, is that this allegedly "new" Obama initiative is nothing more than the same old Saudi version of the Arabs' well-known, openly admitted destruction-in-stages "Trojan Horse" schemes as described in direct quotes from earlier Arab "moderates" themselves.

     Let's take a stroll down memory lane to see how we got to where we are today...

     At a State Department briefing on January 9, 1992,  spokesperson Margaret Tutwiler was asked about accepting the word "Palestinian" when referring to the territories of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. She replied that the U.S. had accepted this usage since 1979, but that it was for "descriptive" purposes only...Typical Foggy Folk gobbledygook.

     When later asked, "if it's a long-standing policy, why wasn't the word 'Palestinian' used in Security Council Resolution 338...or in 242 which underpins the current peace process?," Tutwiler replied," I do not know... I'll be happy to ask somebody for you."

     Some five years later, in a May 21, 1997 briefing, spokesman Nicholas Burns focused on the "settlements" issue...a harbinger of things to come.

     Is it not "interesting" that in numerous State Department briefings over the decades--and in all the discussions and elaborations which have ensued to this very day with the Obama/Clinton foreign policy team running the American show--the ties never seem to be made between those settlements and the spirit and intent of  UNSC Resolution 242, the basis for peace making between Arab and Jew in the region?

     Perhaps a coincidence...most probably,  not.

     It seems to have taken Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to remind his State Department counterparts in an August 6, 2002 speech, "If you have a country that is a sliver and you can see three sides of it from a high hotel building, you've got to be careful what you give away and to whom you give it to."

     Much has been written about 242. Some claim it's ambiguous...It's not.

     Adopted in the wake of the June 1967 War, started when Arabs blockaded Israel at the Straits of Tiran--a casus belli--and other well-documented hostile acts, 242 is as famous for what it did not say as for what it did.

     As anyone who has studied this subject knows, among other things (and besides the references above), there was no mention of a total withdrawal by Israel to the 1949, U.N.-imposed armistice lines...lines which were never meant to be final political borders. This was reinforced by a call for the creation of "secure and recognized", defensible borders to replace those lines...lines which turned Israel into a 9-15 mile wide sub- rump state--forever at its neighbors' mercy, an easy target for terror, invasion, and prone to be sliced in half.

     A reading of Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg, and other architects of the final, accepted draft of 242  (not the French and Russian version) clearly shows that Israel was not expected to return to the deadly, absurd status quo ante.

     As Ambassador Dore Gold and others have pointed out, President Lyndon Johnson summarized the situation this way on June 19, 1967:

     " A return to the situation on June 4 (the day before outbreak of war) was not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities."

     Johnson then called for "new recognized boundaries that would provide security against terror, destruction, and war. He was then backed up by General Earle Wheeler of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and many others as well.

     Recall that on the West Bank, Israel took these lands in a defensive war from an illegal occupant--Transjordan--which subsequently renamed itself Jordan as a result of its 1949 illegal acquisition of non-apportioned lands of the original 1920 Mandate west of the Jordan River that Jews, as well as Arabs and others, were legally entitled to live on.

     Indeed, Jews have thousands of years of history connecting them to these lands and owned property and lived there up until their massacres by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s. Additionally, many, if not most, of the Arabs themselves were also relative newcomers, pouring in--as the Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, Colonial Secretary and later Prime Minister Winston Churchill's writings, and other documentation show--from Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere in the region.

     General Wheeler's document also envisioned Israel acquiring an adequate buffer zone atop the West Bank mountain ridge, in command of the high ground, giving it at least some semblance of in depth defense.

     During President Richard Nixon's term in office, official U.S. policy seemed to erode somewhat vis-a-vis Johnson's position. Whether this was due to Nixon himself or the State Department's Arabists (who fought President Truman and opposed Israel's rebirth in the first place) reasserting themselves, on December 9, 1969 Secretary of State William Rogers allowed for only "insubstantial alterations" regarding the 1949 armistice lines. This is echoed by the Obama White House and the Foggy Folks today.

     After having to answer to the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and others as well, soon afterwards--until recently--the U.S. refrained from such deviation from both the wording and intent of 242.

     Moving ahead, and once again utilizing Ambassador Gold's useful summary, here's what President Ronald Reagan had to say about all of this on September 1, 1982:

     "In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10-miles wide...the bulk of Israel's population within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."

     In 1988, Secretary of State George Shultz declared, "Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders." A rare exception to the State Department's typical attitude, Shultz fought his own crew to give Israel a fair shake.

     In the 1990s, during the Clinton years (despite the later pressure brought to bear on Prime Minister Ehud Barak to sweetin' the pot by offering Arafat far more than 242 called for at Camp David and Taba in 2000), official policy, as expressed by Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1997, was that, "Israel is entitled to secure and defensible borders," a la 242. Yet Clinton undermined Israel from this point forward. While Arafat rejected the offers, the latter became the expected starting point for any future "negotiations"... i.e., Jew arm-twisting.

      So, what happened between the days of Reagan and his latter day successors and son of his vice-president?

     From Reagan's 1982 statement that Israel would never be expected to return to its former vulnerable existence, we later came to President George W. Bush's May 26, 2005 White House statement that the 1949 armistice lines must be the basis of peace between Israel and the 22nd Arab state--second Arab one in "Palestine"-- which Bush and his new successor plan to create. Yet, just a year before, he echoed Reagan himself, stating virtually the opposite of his May 26th statement in a much publicized letter he gave to Prime Minister Sharon.

     As Rogers and Hammerstein's King of Siam said, "Tis a puzzlement!"

     Indeed.

     Yet, there was one constant ingredient that seemed to have constantly been at work for the erosion of support for both the vision and the spirit of 242: James A. Baker, III.

     During Bush II's dad's days in office, best pal Secretary of State Baker promised the butcher of Damascus, Hafez al-Assad, a total Israeli withdrawal from the strategically important (and once part of the original Palestine Mandate) Golan Heights...his personal idea about what to do with 242.

     Baker has been in the background for decades, especially since his close friends, the Bushes, gained ascendancy in American politics. His law firm represents Saudi and other Arab interests in this country and typifies how people move through the revolving doors of businesses tied to Arab interests back and forth into government positions--especially those in Foggy Bottom. Baker's law partner, Robert Jordan, was appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia by President Bush in 2001. Casper Weinberger and many others have been through these lucrative doors as well. Most often, their influence has spelled trouble for an Israel trying to get a fair hearing and has been involved in eroding such positive developments as Resolution 242 and so forth. 

     In a Time magazine article back on February 13, 1989, Baker spoke of Israel as being a turkey to be hunted and carefully stalked. He has referred to Jews working for him and doing his bidding (including the recent American Ambassador to Israel) as his "Jew boys." 

     But Baker is best known for his following piece of wisdom: " F _ _ _ the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway!" 

     And if you believe that Baker is alone among the power brokers with these attitudes, I have two bridges to sell you. 

     The team running President Obama's current foreign policy is a Democratic clone of the above when it comes to such issues. Obama's admiration, friendship, key appointments, and so forth of the likes of Farrakhan, Rezko, Prof. Khalidi, Rev. Wright, Jessie Hymietown Jackson, Zbig Brezinski, Apartheid Israel Carter, Robert Malley, George Soros, General McPeak, Khalid al-Mansour, etc. and so forth have to be beyond the coincidental.

     That, indeed, says it all regarding what Israel can expect from such circles. If you wonder why the vision of justice in 242 has been replaced by a constant bickering over settlements instead--never tying the two together--look no further. 

     President Bush's winning a second term in office and his appointment of Baker as his Special Middle East Envoy combined with the recharged influence of the State Department's old and new generation Arabists and the Bush family's massive oil connections to negate any alleged influence of Evangelical Christians seeking justice for Israel. And since Bush II couldn't run again, he had nothing to lose. 

    Things took a turn for the worse with the election of President Obama.

    Under his watch, and with Hillary Clinton as his appointed Secretary of State, the assurances regarding key issues such as the return of refugees and no withdrawal to the '49 armistice lines that George W. Bush gave to Prime Minister Sharon several years back ( in that famous letter which accompanied the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza) have now either been denied as even existing or considered as a joke.

     Only time will tell how this will all play out. 

     But, at this point, Israel will have to depend on the integrity, courage, and fortitude of its own leaders, expecting them to act as the leaders of any other nation faced with the same circumstances would act.

     Only they can insist that Israel gets the justice Resolution 242 promised it. 

     And, while it would be nice to have support from elsewhere, that's the way it should be anyway. Let's hope Prime Minister Netanyahu is up to the task.
 
                                                                                http://q4j-middle-east.com
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mr. Prime Minister, Make Your Decision...

Posted by Yehoshua on Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:35:59 AM
                                                                                                   Mr. Prime Minister,  Make Your Decision...
 
                                                                                                                             by Gerald A. Honigman
 
 
     An Iranian professor who teaches at a local major university and I have become good friends. I had earlier been invited to speak at his institution, where numerous students from the Middle East attend classes.

     We have been discussing the recent events going on in his native land--events which especially pose a very harsh dilemma for Israel. Indeed, things happening in Iran right now make Israel's choices only that much more difficult...
 
     While the courage of millions of Iranians (with tens of thousands taking to the streets despite brutal repression) may eventually lead to the collapse of the current regime, the latter still has enough support with the folks with the weapons--who have a stake in the Islamic Republic--to also make that possibility very "iffy" as well. So, if Israel waits it out--hoping for an internal solution--who knows when or if that might even occur?
 
     Meantime, Iran is getting closer than ever to becoming a nuclear power--with Israel as its primary target--and openly stated as such. When folks repeatedly and openly speak in terms of another final solution, Jews (many, at least) take them very seriously.
 
     What especially complicates matters is that if Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs think they're going to collapse via an internal revolt and they have become a nuclear power--or even if they "just" have numerous biologically and chemically-tipped missiles (which they surely have...those other weapons of mass destruction that Iraqi Arabs already used on Kurds and probably also on Iranians during their war primarily over Iran's Khuzestan/"Arabistan" province's oil  in the '80s)--they will very likely launch their strike against Israel before they collapse to help bring about their deeply rooted Shi'a belief that the chaos that will next ensue will, at long last ( after the massive Israeli retaliation, and so forth), bring their Hidden Imam--the Mahdi--out of hiding, ushering in their own version of the Christian Armeggedon (from the Hebrew, Har Megiddo) and the return of their own Shi'a Messiah.
 
     Now, Iran is a big country with about 73 million people. Geographically, about seventy-five Israels would fit into Iran, and the former's population is about one tenth of the latter's.
 
     The Mullahs have already shown they are willing to sacrifice millions of their own people for their cause--as displayed when young boys were used as living mine detectors and such in fighting Saddam's then Sunni Arab-controlled Iraq.
 
     Waiting, thus, is far more dangerous for Israel than many other folks realize or give a hoot about. Some --myself, for example--could make a good argument showing that Israel has already grossly endangered itself by caving in to outside pressure to not striking earlier while the targeting would have been easier, etc., and so forth.
 
     While no one wants to see innocents on either side die as a result of the Mullahs' deadly, genocidal games, Israel can't afford to take a first hit for both geographic and demographic reasons described above.
 
     Iran will survive a retaliation by the Jewish State--especially because the latter (unlike all of its Arab and Iranian enemies) will try its very best to zero in on military and political targets.
 
     On the other hand, Iran will try its very best to destroy the entire Jewish State and will primarily and deliberately target Jewish population centers...as their Arab soul mates--when it comes to this subject, at least--do.
 
     Alright, my friends. Each of you is now the Prime Minister of Israel. Recall that in 1938, Czechoslovakia was sold out in Munich by its "friends" for an alleged "peace for our time." The world was soon at war anyway, because Hitler had his sights set far beyond the Czechs' Sudetenland.
 
      Given all of this, Mr. Prime Minister, now decide on your course of action for your own sole, resurrected nation--one which requires a magnifying glass to find it on a world globe.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Apology Not Accepted

Posted by Yehoshua on Thursday, December 24, 2009 2:38:13 PM
 

                                                                                                                                                                   Apology Not Accepted...

                                                                                                                                                                                          by Gerald A. Honigman

 

     Ex-President Jimmy Carter has recently asked Jews for forgiveness.

     Among his other sources of conflict with members of the Tribe are his persistently, one-sided takes on Arab-Israeli issues culminating in his book equating Israel with the former apartheid regime of South Africa.

     Carter claims that the fact that his grandson is now running for office in their home state of Georgia has nothing to do with his apology. He states that Jews only make up 2% of the county where his grandson lives--about the same percent that Jews make up in the nation at large--and so uses this as further evidence of the integrity of his intentions.

     Hogwash!

     Now, before I go any further, let me say that I voted for Carter in the '70s.

     I liked his approach to environmental concerns. I believed  that, given the way man has trashed this planet, any further mistakes--if they had to be made--needed to be on the side of caution and sane conservation.

     For a number of reasons--especially after the Iran fiasco--I soon came to regret my decision.

   I'll never forget watching the Democrat National Convention on television a while back, and watching Carter chasing after that other hero of the Arabs, general anti-Semites, and the ultra left.

     Yes, there was Mr. "Apartheid Israel" kissing the derriere of his Hollywood producer comrade, Michael "Israel is one of the three top evils in the world" Moore.

    Birds of a feather, peas of the same pod, and so forth.

    Like other Gentile politicos, the Democrat, Carter,  has received millions of dollars from Arabs for his help in demonizing Israel and Jews. Ex-Secretary of State James f_ _ _ the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway Baker III, a Republican, is his worthy counterpart. Both have plenty of company.

     Well, I have a way Jimmy can put this all to rest...sort of.

     Since he is a man of the world whose books do indeed reach millions and influence world opinion, I have a new assignment for him--one which he should not have had me have to assign to him.

     After all, for decades now, if Israel took one too many breaths, he was there to investigate, criticize, and dissect it under the high power lens of moral scrutiny. Most often, his critiques were given little or no context whatsoever. Jewish victims were constantly blamed themselves when issues such as blown buses, checkpoints, the security barrier, and such were discussed. Constantly, Arabs were given a virtual free pass in Carter's assessments.

     While constantly indulging in such hypocrisy, Carter acted deaf, dumb, and blind regarding what was happening in the region surrounding the nation of the Jews--his perpetually favorite target.

     So, since he couldn't figure out that he needed to do this himself, here's his assignment. If he completes it, his words of apology to Jews might gain some credibility.

     Jimmy, your first task is to travel to re-visit your friend, Bashar al-Assad, the butcher of Damascus and author of the "Hama Solution's" son, in Syria.

     I'm sure that the last time you guys met, the word "Kurd" never left your lips...while you were discussing mutual disgust regarding the nation of the Jews.

     So, since you worry so much about Arab rights and conditions--which are harmed precisely because they want that tiny, sole nation of the Jews dead--you must now, at long last, demand that "Arab" Syria stop murdering and subjugating its millions of Kurds. The latter are not even allowed to speak their own language, have been forcibly Arabized for decades--yet I don't recall a peep about their plight ever being uttered from your lips. Only America's toppling of Saddam changed things for the better for "Arab" Iraq's millions of Kurds. Again, not a peep out of you about them, nor concern over their brethren in the Turkish and Iranian portions of Kurdistan either...some thirty five million perpetually used and abused stateless people. Why hasn't their plight caught your attention?

     The second part of your assignment will take you to "Arab" North Africa.

     Since you are allegedly so concerned about human rights, you will finally have to break your troubling silence about the plight of another truly stateless people (Arabs have almost two dozen states; "Palestinians"--no matter how you define them--are Arabs), the thirty million or so Imazhigen/Berbers, who predate their Arab conquerors by millennia and who, like the Kurds, have had their own language and culture outlawed by Arabs and who have been murdered if they have resisted. All of these things are happening in the here and now. Amazigh parents being told they must name their children with Arab names and other such goodies.

     Why the silence?

     If this was Israel doing one tenth of this , you'd be writing another book about those nasty Jews.

     Okay, moving on.

     Your next assignment has you moving just a bit south and east into the Sudan.

     While Darfur in the west has been making the news of late, the forced Arabization of the south by the north has been going on for centuries and exploded once again in the '60s.

     Where has Carter been while this Arab enslavement, genocide, and such against black Africans (and not only in the Sudan) has been going on? And, unlike the most of the south, the blacks in Darfur are also Muslims...so, this goes beyond a religious jihad and truly involves Arab racism, pure and simple. Many quotes from black victims have testified to this.

     And where has he been when millions of native Copts in "Arab" Egypt suffered this same subjugation, intimidation, Arabization, murder, and such? Or regarding the plight of the Middle East's native Jews-- those whom Arabs call "their" kilab yahud...Jew Dogs. One half of Israel consists of such Jews from "Arab" lands...the other half of the refugee problem Carter doesn't seem to know or care  about.

     Alright...it's time to bring this to an end.

     So, here's the deal, Mr. Carter...

     Write your book and give your speeches and write your articles taking Arabs to task for the crimes they have committed against everyone else in the region besides themselves--real crimes, not measures Israel has been forced to take to merely survive Arab slaughter--and those Jews who care (many don't, so they will support you right now) will take you seriously.

     http://q4j-middle-east.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Little Yiddish...

Posted by Yehoshua on Saturday, December 12, 2009 2:59:06 PM

                                                                      A Yiddish Lesson For My Gentile Friends...

                                                                                                 by Gerald A. Honigman

 

     Hey...I don't even like the language.

     Don't get me wrong, I realize the importance it played for one portion of my people's history.

     But it also represents the plight of a conquered people, forced into dispersion, sold as slaves wherever the conquering Roman armies traveled, and having to adapt to a new life as a downtrodden, oppressed people. Yiddish is not the language of my forefathers...Hebrew is. The language of a new, resurrected Israel which was a least partially reborn to end the Jews' latter, millennially powerless condition.

     Jews fleeing or sold into slavery elsewhere besides northern Europe adapted likewise...The languages of Ladino, Judeo-Arabic, and such thus also emerged as a result of the Great Diaspora. Before the Roman assault, it is also true that Jews had also spread out--or had been spread out--elsewhere as well, for a variety of reasons.

     Yiddish was thus the concoction of German, Hebrew, Slavic, and some other languages that most European Jews invented in order to survive in their new surroundings. The spoken language was/is written in the Hebrew alphabet.

     For some reason, Jews have a number of ways of expressing the male body part for use as a means of derision. So, get ready for your first Yiddish lesson...

     Schmuck equals putz equals...

     Well, let me give you an example of what acting like a putz is like.

     Israel has been behaving like the classic putz supreme for decades now regarding a few crucial issues.

     While I have written about this before, the current disturbing events surrounding the captured Israel soldier, Sergeant Gilad Shalit, make it necessary to rehash this yet again.

     As a father, my heart especially goes out to the Shalit family. But there is a very serious problem associated with this, one that Israel never seems to learn the lesson from.

     Repeatedly, Israel has taken alive known Arab murderers and wannabes who have butchered and planned to butcher innocent Jewish civilians. This is often a big mistake which oftens turns out biting Israel on its collective tuchas...another Yiddish word for you know what.

     Trying to be a biblical light unto the nations in its moral behavior has only backfired on it big time--over and over again.

     Dropping hundreds of thousands of leaflets warning Arab civilians to get out of harm's way, calling them on cell phones, and so forth (and thus telegraphing its punch to Hamas & Co. as well) didn't do it any good after israel finally went after Hamas in Gaza last year. The United Nations still blamed the Jews anyway. Attempting to behave so in a very humanly imperfect world--especially the neighborhood in which Israel is located--has only led to such nauseating scenarios as we are now seeing played out in the Shalit Affair.

     Not that long ago, Israel traded a load of other live and well Arab disembowelers and such of Jews for the remains of a few of the latter. Among those that Arabs got back in good health was the proud murderer of a small Jewish girl (he crushed her skull on a rock with his rifle butt) and her father--whom he drowned after shooting. Samir Kuntar, of course, was greeted as a glorious hero upon his arrival back in Lebanon--parade and all.

     Now, since I've already brought up biblical before, let's get biblical again...

     For those of you who think that one of the ten commandments says "thou shalt not kill," I've got some news. The Hebrew word does not say that; rather, it commands, "thou shalt not murder." The verb used in the Hebrew text is indeed different with a different meaning. The same way other words and concepts have been mistranslated (often deliberately) for one reason or another when translated into other languages from the original Hebrew, this same thing happened in this example as well. Indeed, there is a lot of killing going on in the historical portion of the Hebrew Bible--some murdering too.

     The current issue of the day involves the proposed trade of Sgt. Shalit, who was kidnapped on the Israeli side of the border by the same Hamas crew who killed two of his comrades, for a thousand Arabs who either murdered or plotted to murder Jews and to destroy their state.

     There are those who are against capital punishment. They have the right to be wrong.

     I wish I could claim ownership to the saying I am about to either quote or paraphrase, but I can't...

     Trying to be human to the inhumane only results too often in being inhumane to the humane.

     Why should innocent people have to pay tens of thousands of dollars each year to keep alive those who deliberately target and slaughter innocents?

     If there is a question of guilt, I agree that perhaps a different fate may be appropriate.

     But, in far too many cases (as with Samir Kuntar), there is no question--and the guilty only live to laugh at the society which worries more about them than those whom they have butchered and others left behind in mourning and having to deal with all the other consequences of those crimes. At times, those freed have lived to murder yet again.

     Israel is currently now set to release many more of such prisoners--again, one thousand, this time--to try to gain the freedom of Shalit.

     If this "deal" happens, Israel must finally learn the lesson here--and stop behaving like the proverbial Yiddish putz.

     Israel must quickly enact capital punishment--permitted by the Hebrew Bible against murderers--and get rid of too many Jew idiots who now serve as judges weeping more for murderers than for their victims.  

     Regardless of their geographical location, Jews too often everywhere confuse the compassion of the Hebrew Prophets to translate into serious problems or even suicide for themselves. Just look at how too many choose to vote as just one example of this phenomenon.

     I don't say these things as a blatant right winger... I am simply repeating the same justice that my Hebrew forbearers had the wisdom to promote in the very religious teaching of my own people.

     Lastly, the problem that Israel and other nations face today indeed involves those who would murder and subjugate others--given the chance--using our own sense of "liberal" values and freedoms which are perverted to advance their own religio-political agendas. The question then becomes, will Israel and others still be foolish enough to allow this to continue?

     America's own recent tragic experience at Fort Hood, Texas, with a Jihadi Arab (Nidal Malik Hasan)-- who should have never been allowed to occupy the position in the army that he was in anyway given the solid evidence in his background pointing to serious problems--is but another sorry example of what we face here in our own country--and yet another sorry example of how we may use some of those Yiddish words I have taught you above.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Not To Treat A Friend

Posted by Yehoshua on Saturday, November 21, 2009 6:26:31 PM
 

                                                                                                                                            How Not To Treat A Friend...

                                                                                                                                                              by Gerald A. Honigman

 

     OK, I'll admit it. This most recent manifestation of Hebrew idiocy and nauseating cowardice hit home in a very personal way (and folks think Jews are smart).

      Over the years, I have come to know brave folks from the Middle East and North Africa who, at great risk to themselves, have taken a stand against the murderous, subjugating mindset of far too many Arabs and other jihadists in the region. They have indeed been collectively a unique voice in confronting this growing problem.

       Among this courageous cadre, the late Tashbih Sayyed, Supna Zaidi (Tashbih's daughter), Nonie Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, "Yugurten," Dr. Sherkoh Abbas, Dr. Rebwar Fatah, "Sarchl," and a few others stand out for me since I have dealt with them personally. I have also physically seen the amazing ex-terrorist, Walid Shoebat in action. There are other very important people who belong to this select group as well.

     On their own, before I even knew who these folks above were, they found my editorials calling for a vision of justice in the region which dared to go beyond simply catering to the Arabs' "purely Arab patrimony" claims and showcased my articles in their own print and web publications. In the "Arab"/Muslim World, other folks have lost their heads for much less.

     Along with Dr. Abbas of the Kurdistan National Assembly/Syria, Nonie Darwish (ArabsForIsrael.com , Now They Call Me Infidel, etc.) wrote the Foreword to my new book, The Quest For Justice In the Middle East...The Arab-Israeli Conflict In Greater Perspective  http://q4j-middle-east.com

     Some three decades ago, while trying to complete my own doctoral work, I drove to or was flown in as a specialist consultant to dozens of colleges and universities across a tri-state region in the Midwest to balance some blatantly anti-Israel speaker or academic on campus.

     I was often met by anti-Israel protestors--Jews included--and on more than one occasion had my car followed by Arabs and other students. One event required law enforcement protection in the evening.

     What I have just described is the Arab and extreme Left's idea of "free speech." It was so back then, and it so today as well...perhaps even worse. Those leopards haven't changed their spots; indeed, it has always been this way. Unfortunately, this is too often the case in the typical college classroom as well. If one dares to disagree with the usual oppressed Arab/oppressor Jew lesson being dished out, one may do so at the risk of one's academic career. Been there, done that--unfortunately.

     Back to the present...

     As too many have witnessed firsthand, those of us who try to expose the politically correct "poor, abused Arabs/nasty Zionist " take regarding the Middle East for the lie that it is are increasingly silenced in our attempts in a wide variety of ways. Those who dare to differ with the Arab/Leftist version of "truth," are frequently labeled fascists and such, while truly racist anti-Zionist invective and plain old anti-Semitism frequently run rampant and uncensored.

     Nonie Darwish was scheduled to present at both Columbia and Princeton on November 18th and 19th at the invitation of allegedly pro-Israel groups there. At virtually the last moment, after all the planning that goes into these things had already taken place (I know, my own presentation at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University here in Daytona very recently got the same treatment), she was canceled. Had this been done to one of a gadzillion anti-Israel Rashid Khalidi (President Obama's close friend) or Noam Chomsky-type speakers, the proverbial manure would have hit the fan.

     It turns out the Jews in charge on campus turned tail and ran as soon as the Muslim groups raised a fuss. I'm sure that if the situation was reversed, the Arabs would have done the same for their pathetic Jew stooges. I'm also sure that the Pope is really a closet Hindu.

     When will you wake up, O fellow members of the Tribe?

     Are Jews and Israel so overloaded with friends--who seek not injustice for Arabs, but just some relative justice for scores of millions of others who are non-Arabs in the region as well--that we can afford to alienate those who dare to speak out for our cause?

     Unfortunately, Jewish history is no stranger to these types of Jews. The Romans had them, Spain's Grand Inquisitor had them, Hitler had them, and so forth.

    What is the crime for which Nonie and others must be censored--and by Jews, too, no less?

     Please read the words of Dr. Sherkoh Abbas to get an idea...

     Mr. Honigman's book presents a look at justice in the region from a much broader perspective than the view that is so prevalent today, one which only addresses the Arab cause.

     And, in Nonie Darwish's own words...

     Is it not time to discuss "justice" in the broader perspective? That is why Mr. Honigman' book is vital...it will open minds and hearts to the quest for justice for all of the Middle East's peoples-not only Arabs.

     Now, do you get the picture?

     How do you shed tears because Arabs have conquered and forcibly Arabized "only" almost two dozen states of their own to date, while scores of millions of Kurds, Imazighen (Berbers), and others are denied even the right to speak their own native languages or name their children with non-Arab names?

     How do you demand a roadmap for a 22nd Arab state--which will still be dedicated to the destruction of the sole, miniscule one of the Jews--and yet play deaf, dumb, and blind to the political aspirations of scores of millions of oppressed non-Arab peoples in the region?

     And so forth...

     Nonie, Brigitte (ActForAmerica.org; Because They Hate...), Walid,  Supna (Muslim World Today), Sherkoh, Yugurten (Afrique du Norde), and their colleagues refuse to play the Arab game, as popular as it is with too much of the rest of the world--including too many head-in-the-sand and/or self-hating Jews who believe that the Arab-Israeli conflict is still just all about territory.

     This elite cadre knows that there is one basic truism here: The conflict has never been about how big Israel is, but that Israel is. Indeed, Arabs have called the potential birth of an independent Kurdistan as being the equivalent of that of another Israel. Likewise, conquering Arabs have called the subjugated native people of North Africa--the Imazighen--Zionist conspirators as well.

     Alas, on the contrary, the Arab-Israeli conflict has always been about that conquering Arab mindset, mentioned earlier, which has resulted in the slaughter, subjugation, and forced Arabization of scores of millions of other native, Asiatic, but non-Arab peoples over the centuries (continuing to this very day)--Kurds, Imazighen/Berbers, Copts, Jews (more of whom fled to Israel from Arab lands than vice-versa ), Assyrians, black Africans , Hindus, Buddhists, and so forth. In short, it is about Arabs' utter refusal to grant anyone else (not only Jews) even a tiny sliver of the justice that they demand so forcibly for themselves.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary In North Africa: Treating Symptoms Vs. Disease

Posted by Yehoshua on Saturday, November 07, 2009 11:06:25 AM

                                                                                                                                                  Treating The Symptom Instead Of The Disease

                                                                                                                                                                                       by Gerald A. Honigman

 

     Recently, my youngest daughter, Elana Judith, came down with a case of the flu--probably swine flu, says the doctor.

     While we were discussing various treatments, he emphasized the importance of not simply masking the symptoms but treating the actual disease. I knew that--but wisdom, anyway. And this relates to the seemingly perpetual mess in the Middle East as well.

     You see, we're always treating symptoms there too--especially regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict--unless you buy into the Arab line that Israel is the source of all evil.

     Case in point...

     Secretary of State Clinton made a hasty visit to North Africa--both Egypt and Morocco--to kiss Arab leaders' derrieres for her previous "mistake." Her crime? She dared to praise Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's temporary halt to allowing more Judeans--Jews--to live in Judea, a place where they lived and owned land for millennia up until their slaughter by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s.  Over a million Arabs--many hostile to Israel and supporters of those who would see it destroyed and its people slaughtered--can live in the Jewish State without fear, but how dare Jews live in a small part of Judea.

     Only in the early 20th century were Judea and Samaria also given the name "West Bank" to distinguish that area from the new Arab state created on the east bank of the Jordan River and today known as Jordan. The latter, by the way, sits on almost 80% of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine and declared that no Jew could ever live there. When the Emirate of Transjordan conquered the west bank in the '48 fighting, that area also became off limits to Jews while Arabs had already been flocking into it and elsewhere in the Mandate from all over the region. That's how Transjordan became Jordan, and so much for the Arab claim that Jews got all or most of the land.

     I truly feel sorry for the interested, reading public. They must get tired of hearing the same claims and counter claims over and over again. And we who try to set the record straight are tired of this too. But what is our choice--to not respond to Arab assertions and outright lies? So, please bear with me...

     First of all, the settlement issue that has Hillary and her boss hot and bothered--Jewish towns/settlements, that is (Arabs' are proclaimed kosher here)--is largely all about whether Israel gets the necessary territorial buffer promised to it after the 1967 war via Resolution 242 and supported by past American leaders or not. It is about whether sanity prevails or Israel allows itself to be bullied by those practicing hypocrisy in the worst way. Read my last article, Between Samoa and Samaria for further clarification if necessary.

     Secondly, I'm concerned over Netanyahu's offer too...so Arabs have company in this corner. Who knows what he actually offered if Hillary gave him some praise. She's definitely no fan of Jewish leaders who act like they still have their private parts intact...regardless of what too many card playing Jewishgrandmaslike to think. Israelis did not vote Bibi into office to elect yet another yes massah stooge for an American State Department which fought against Israel's very existence from the getgo and remains hostile and largely Arabist in orientation to this very day.

     Hillary responded at her subsequent meeting with Arab foreign ministers in Marrakesh by virtually ordering Israel to halt resettlement of Jews anywhere in Judea or Samaria--the other part of the West Bank. And notice, Hillary also got Netanyahu to blackball his own foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman--asecretary of state's appropriate counterpart--because Lieberman has the cohones to tell it like it is. This is yet another cause of concern regarding some of our hopes that things would really be different with the new Israeli leadership.

     Okay--back to symptoms and diseases...

     Some say that the Arab-Israeli conflict is too complex to resolve.

     It may not be resolved--but not because it is too complex.

    The conflict between Jew and Arab is indeed a mere symptom of a far more serious disease--one that far too many academic "experts" refuse to even touch with a ten foot pole. It's much easier (and less problematic to professional careers given funding realities and other "opportunities" which may be lost) to merely treat the "symptom." So, the disease is usually totally ignored.

     What's the symptom, you ask? Anyone, besides Arabs, demanding a slice of political justice in what Arabs claim to be purely Arab patrimony.

     Think of it...There was Hillary in "Arab" North Africa. And what was she up to? Reassuring Arabs that Israel will remain a 9-15 mile wide sub rump state, perpetually at their mercy under threat of invasion, terrorism, and being severed in half. Israel is simply expected to forget about the establishment of real and secure borders--not previously imposed armistice lines--that the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 called for after the 1967 fighting which started as a result of an Arab blockade of Israel and other hostile acts.

    Former American presidents and secretary of states, such as Johnson, Reagan, and Shultz, American military leaders, all of the architects of the final draft of 242, and the last president before Obama, George W. Bush, understood this and the need for a real territorial compromise here. As I have supplied many of their exact statements in previous articles, I'll refrain from doing so now.

     Yes, there was Hillary in "Arab" North Africa demanding the creation of the Arabs' 22nd state (and second one in "Palestine") at the sole, microscopic state of the Jews' expense. And, all the while simply playing deaf, dumb, and blind to the plight of tens of millions of native, non-Arab North African people, the Imazighen ( Berbers), who--together with numerous native North African Jews (who had earlier fled the Roman conquest of Israel/Judaea)--resisted the murderous jihad and forced Arabization process for centuries--clear up until the present day.

     Ibn Khaldun, perhaps the greatest Muslim scholar of all time, wrote of this forced Arabization of the Berbers and their brave resistance to it six centuries ago. He also wrote of the alliance of the Jews and Imazhigen, under the leadership of the Jewish queen, Dahiyah al-Kahina (the priestess), to fight the Arab invaders, settlers, colonizers, and conquerors of their lands.

     Today, most of North Africa's (including Egypt's) Jews have fled, moving to Israel, France, the Americas, and elsewhere--part of that other side of the refugee problem that is rarely spoken about.

     Tens of millions of native Imazighen, however, remain. If they are willing to do what Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali told an Israeli author Israel must do to be "accepted" in the region--consent to Arabization like he, one of the most famous of Egypt's Copts, and many other millions of these Egyptian native, pre-Arab people have been forced to do after Egypt's own Arab conquest in the 7th century C.E. , then they too may gain acceptance.

     Today, if one really wants to know what's happening with the Copts, one is forced to consult with those who have fled their native land. Murder, burned down churches, intimidation, and never knowing what the morrow will bring--i.e., the plight of the dhimmi Jew or Christian in Arab Muslim lands--is the reality back home.

     And all of the above is virtually ignored on the world scene--certainly by Hillary and the Arabist State Department she now leads. Yet, the Copts at least warranted one brief, flash of a second mention by President Obama in his earlier, now famous Cairo speech. Not so, however, for North Africa's Imazighen, mostly west of Egypt.

     Most of the world acts as if these tens of millions of native people don't even exist--in other words, have bought into the Arab game plan hook, line , and sinker...the real disease that no one will even acknowledge, let alone treat.

     Imazighen who do not consent to this forced Arabization--forsaking their own language, culture, and so forth--do so at the risk of their own lives. Many have indeed been killed for such reasons over recent decades let alone before.

     As Hillary was joining the stick-it-to-the Jews Arab foreign ministers' party in Morocco, Amazigh parents were increasingly being told that they could not even name their own children with traditional names but must use Arab/Islamic ones instead.

     Please pay close attention to a few excerpts included in a Special Dispatch of MEMRI on May 3, 2007 written by Belkacem Lounes of the World Amazigh Congress as he responded to Libya's Mu'ammar Qaddafi's denial of the very existence of the Amazigh people:

     "The people of whom you speak...speak their own Amazigh language daily...every day live their Amazigh identity...What worse offense to elementary rights is there than denying the existence of a people...30 million in North Africa? You menace the Amazigh, warning that whosoever asserts his identity will be a traitor...identical problems in Algeria and Morocco (right where Hillary was joining Arabs in lecturing Jews)...There is no worse colonialism than internal colonialism--that of the Pan-Arabist claim that seeks to dominate our people. It is surely Arabism--an imperialist ideology that refuses diversity--that constitutes an offense to history and truth..."

    Or, how about these excerpts and paraphrases from the New English Review on January 18, 2008 and reported in North-of-Africa.com on July 3, 2009:

     " In Algeria, Berbers were forbidden to use their own language, Tamazight...riots erupted, reported in France but ignored elsewhere in the West...America, of course, had been sufficiently subject to ARAMCO (the Arabian American Oil Company) propaganda, a payoff to the Saudis by Big Oil, to allow the latter to produce and market Arab oil. So, ARAMCO's message to America was that there is just an Arab world in this region in which there are no Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkmen...and, of course, no Berbers and no Jews--they all came to Israel, you see, from Europe for everyone in this region is just Arab."

     The American State Department has been in bed with ARAMCO since its creation--get the picture?

     So, there it is folks, plain and simple...the disease.

     With the collapse of the over four century old Ottoman Turkish Empire after World War I, Arabs proclaimed themselves, in the relatively new nationalist age emerging in the region, to be sole benefactors and political heirs to the entire area.

     Hundreds of thousands of gassed and otherwise massacred Kurds; genocide against literally millions of black Africans in the Sudan and elsewhere; murder, subjugation, and intimidation of Imazighen, Copts, Assyrian, pre-Arab Lebanese, and others; and perpetual jihad against "their" kilab yahud Jew dogs has been the Arab legacy here. In order to just be allowed to exist, one better not rock the boat.

     And the world is silent about it all.

     It's those checkpoints and a security barrier that Jews erect to stop Arabs from blowing up their kids which are the real problem and that Israel got taken to an international court for.

     Or, better yet, scores of millions of non-Arabs are expected to live as "Arabs" in some two dozen states, but how dare some Arabs live in someone else's! That's the real travesty...Sure, and as I like to say, I'm also the Passover Bunny. Don't laugh--that's the Arab mindset which is  accepted by the current American administration (and forever by the State Department) and for which Israel is chastised for not accepting.

     So, this is the story ignored like the plague by too many academic "experts," the mainstream media, the United Nauseating Nations, the Foggy Folks, and far too many others as well.

     It is the disease that plagues the entire Middle East and North Africa (and beyond as well)-- the politically incorrect but very real subjugating intolerance of Arabs towards allowing any others--not only Jews in Israel (one half of whom who were refugees from the "Arab" World)--a tiny slice of the dignity and rights they demand solely for themselves but which all peoples deserve.

     And when I state all peoples, I do not include so-called "Palestinians" here.

     However one defines that only recently and deliberately concocted term, "Palestinians" are but a tiny fraction of the greater Arab people. In the words of Arab spokesmen themselves, like the P.L.O's own Zuheir Mohsen, the term was adopted merely to negate the dreams of Jews.

     Speaking of "stateless Palestinians" in the same breath as thirty-five million stateless Kurds, for example, only makes a mockery of the plight of a truly stateless people.

     Using Arab logic here (done as a propaganda ploy to turn themselves into the "new, stateless Jews"), then Kurds should also rename themselves after the numerous different areas they inhabit and then demand the creation of not (finally) one state but a dozen for themselves in the region. Ditto for the Imazighen. While we're at it, let's create another Jewish state in part of Morocco--where Hillary recently returned from (quiet, Jerry...don't you know that Morocco has been fairly tolerant in recent history towards its Jews...do you want to cause trouble?). More Jews are from Morocco-- and, along with the Imazighen,  pre-date the Arabs there by centuries than there were Arabs who got to have Kuwait.

     The Arab-Israeli conflct, indeed, is but a symptom of this far greater disease.

     And it's much easier to treat the symptom by blaming the victim and making it go away than with dealing with the real problem.

     Neither the Arabs' more honest Hamas nor the Arabs' latter day Arafatian Fatah's Abbas has any intention of recognizing a state of the Jews nor allowing it to exist in peace--regardless of who is doing the whitewashing. To such enemies, Israel owes nothing except exponential payback.

     Why a 22nd state for Arabs constructed mostly on non-Arab peoples' lands, while scores of millions of the region's non-Arab peoples have to fight and die daily to just have the right to speak their own language and for the most basic of human and other political rights? And when will there be a United Nations Goldstone Report exposing such true crimes against humanity?

     My new book, The Quest For Justice In The Middle East--The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Greater Perspective, gets into all of this in great detail--issues usually ignored by a wide assortment of the world's hypocrites, practitioners of the double standard supreme, and pusillanimous sycophants of the Arab petrodollar.

     Quest...is ready to order now at http://q4j-middle-east.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Between Samoa and Samaria

Posted by Yehoshua on Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:11:40 AM
 

                                                                                           Between Samoa and Samaria...

                                                                                                                 by Gerald A. Honigman

     Recently, tragedy struck Samoa in the South Pacific Ocean in the form of a tidal wave triggered by an earthquake. American Samoa is an unincorporated state southeast of independent Samoa.

     As I heard the reports come in, I couldn't help but ponder the irony here.

     We just let those words roll right off of our tongues...American Samoa.

     In case you didn't know, the various Polynesian peoples living on those islands and others as well didn't ask to be invaded, converted, conquered, given offers they couldn't refuse, and so forth. Yet the French, Germans, and Americans wound up dividing the islands among themselves.

     The U.S. Navy secured Deeds of Cession of Tutuila in 1900 and of Manu?a in 1904. The last sovereign ruler of Manu?a was forced to sign that Deed of Cession following a series of U.S. Naval trials, known as the "Trial of the Ipu", in Pago Pago, Ta?u, and aboard a U.S. Navy warship.

     Samoa is many thousands of miles away from America, Americans have no natural nor historical ties to the land, but--in the name of American national interests--eastern Samoa became American territory as a result of the Tripartite Convention dividing the archipelago between Germany and America in 1899.

     Okay...now let's consider Samaria.

     Together with Judea, they both make up what is now called the "West Bank." The latter name did not exist until the early 20th century. After the defeat of the over four century old Ottoman Turkish Empire in World War I, the Brits and the French divided up much of the Middle Eastern and North African spoils.

     In 1922, to reward Hashemite Arab allies in the Arabian Peninsula (remember the movie, Lawrence of Arabia?)--who were in the process of gradually getting their own derrieres kicked out of there by the rival clan of Ibn Saud (hence, Saudi Arabia today)--the Brits chopped of almost 80% of the original Mandate of Palestine that they had received on April 25, 1920 and handed it over to the Hashemites.

     Since all of this land reward consisted of Palestine across (east of) the Jordan River, the East Bank became known as the Emirate of Transjordan. The West Bank--formerly known for thousands of years as Judea and Samaria--was on the opposite shore.

     When Transjordan illegally seized the non-apportioned territory of the Mandate on the "West Bank" in 1948 (where Jews, Arabs, and others were legally allowed to live) when it joined other attacking Arab states to try to nip a reborn, miniscule Israel in the bud, it further emphasized this designation to distinguish its newly conquered territory from the original 1922 East Bank Emirate.

     Jews had lived and owned property in Judea and Samaria for--literally--thousands of years. Massacres by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s took their tolls as did previous ups and downs of Jewish history under the various imperial conquerors which succeeded each other since the fall of Judea to Rome some two thousand years earlier. As soon as Transjordan grabbed Judea and Samaria, it declared that no Jew could live there. Places such as Hebron, Beth-El, Shilo, Bethlehem, Shechem, and so forth are known to the world today because of their introductions via the Hebrew Bible. Most Arabs came into the area after their own imperial conquests in the 7th century C.E. They ruled,first out of Damascus and then Bagdad, for a few centuries and were then conquered themselves by the next imperial successors.

     After 1949, when Transjordan grabbed the "West Bank," while no Jews were allowed in the territories, numerous Arabs poured into them from all over. To further its Judenrein policies, Transjordan--now holding both banks of the River-- renamed itself Jordan and proceeded to destroy dozens of synagogues, cemeteries, and so forth in adjacent Jerusalem and elsewhere dating back numerous centuries and showing the Jews continuous connections to the land.

     Alright, now consider this next...

     The current American Administration and the perpetually anti-Israel State Department insist that no Jews should be allowed to live in Judea or Samaria. Furthermore, they also demand that Israel abandon what UNSC Resolution 242 promised it after the June '67 War--secure, defensible borders instead of the previous '49 armistice lines which made it virtually invisible on a world map.

     America can grab lands thousands of miles away in the name of its own interests, but no Jew may live in Judea or Samaria. And do you really think President Noriega was toppled in Panama, thousands of miles away, because he was a drug dealer?

     Nothing wrong with this picture?

     I have a deal...and I hope Israeli leaders are listening closely.

     Forget fair...

     Only Jews worry about this sort of thing when they're fighting for their very lives against enemies who won't grant them any peace at all except the peace of the grave--regardless of the size Israel will shrink itself to. And the rest of the world couldn't care less...

     So, let's think about what's needed for survival for a change...

     If Judea must be Judenrein, then every Arab in Israel must be sent packing. Israel must be made Arabrein. Half of the latter are just waiting-- like vultures-- to pounce anyway... given the right moment.

     It is truly time for equal treatment here. What's good for Jews must be good for Arabs.

     Trading hundreds of live Arab butchers and wanabees for the remains of a few Jews, for example, is another pathetic example of the inequality Israel seems to just accept. Execute--quickly--the former, and you won't have as many to trade (only to have them return to kill more Jews) after you've been repeatedly blackmailed. Think Hamas and the current tragic Gilad Shalit fiasco.

     Forget land for peace. This has been nothing but a bad joke, part of the Arabs' well-known and openly-admitted destruction-in-phases plan since 1967. Look at a map of the region. Is the problem a lack of Arab land in compared to Israel?

     Peace for peace...Period.

     No recognition of a Jewish State of Israel? Then the hell with recognizing a 22nd state for Arabs--and their second , not first, one in "Palestine... Period.

     Unlike Samoa to America, Judea and Samaria are literally a stone's throw away from Israel's heartland, are an integral part of Jewish history, and are positioned to allow a hostile army entering from the east to cut Israel in half. The Arabs have indeed already tried that one on for size.

     Finally, this can't be repeated too often...

     Look at what came after Israel's total withdrawal from Gaza years ago to see what a total Israeli withdrawal from the "West Bank" will mean for Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ben-Gurion Airport, the Knesset,  and so forth once Israel has been forced back to the '49 armistice lines--not borders--imposed on it by the United Nations andwhich made it a mere 9-15 miles wide at its strategic waist, where most of its population, industry, and so forth are located.

     And the next time you hear voices out of Washington insisting upon a Jew-free Judea and Samaria, please give a long, hard thought to American Samoa.

     Please check out my new book at http://q4j-middle-east.com . It makes its Washington debut at the renowned Professors Fuad Ajami and Bernard Lewis's ASMEA Conference this month.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dear Governor Palin...

Posted by Yehoshua on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:44:18 PM

Post

Dear Madam Governor...From One Fisherperson To Another
by Gerald A. Honigman


There are many things that I admire about you.

I wish you well and believe that if you give some further thought to issues that I will discuss below, you will find yourself in a much better position to attract many more voters--especially Independents--in your future endeavors.

Let me begin by first telling you a few stories...

About ten years ago, my son, Jonathan, and I were returning from a day's fishing out on the Intracoastal Waterway near our home in Florida. We live on a one-block street that sits between that above estuary and the Atlantic Ocean. So, seeing you and your husband on television salmon fishing in Alaska triggers lots of understanding from these quarters. I believe that we both share a love of nature and a gratitude for that which G_d, via nature, provides.

Well, on that day mentioned above, as we were pulling our little boat out of the water, along came a commercial blue claw crabber complaining about how hard it was, since the new redfish laws went into effect, to catch all of the crabs that he wanted.

The blackened seafood craze out of New Orleans had placed a high demand on large reds, and the big breeders were fast disappearing--victims of modern commercial fishing advances and technology. Unfortunately, a similar story could be told about the fate of too many other species as well.

To try to save the red drum from virtual extinction, laws setting limits were passed giving reds far greater protection. As a result, the species began to make a decent comeback. That now brings us back to the crabber.

With about two dozen big, covered, slatted containers filled with crabs, their legs sticking through the spaces between the slats, the crabber decided to complain to me about those "environmentalists" who caused him so much hardship...

How so? Well, they were responsible for setting limits on how many reds could be taken, and since there were now more reds around, they were eating more of "his" and other crabbers' blue claws. I believe my blood pressure shot up a hundred points at that moment.

Oh yes...perhaps I should also explain that I am a biology teacher--a specialist in ecological science (one of only fifty teachers in the entire state asked to write the teaching guidelines for these subjects).

I turned to him and asked if he ever considered the impact that he and all of his buddies were having on the crab situation. It was like I was talking to myself.

One more story...

Early in the last century, it was decided that wolves, cougars, and other natural predators would be exterminated in the Kaibab Peninsula in Arizona to help the mule deer population.

Federal agents did their thing, and within a few years the deer had doubled their numbers. However, with no natural predation and hunting banned, the Kaibab deer herd continued to grow. Between 1906 and 1924, the herd increased from 3,000 to about 100,000 animals, far beyond the carrying capacity of the land. After the herd depleted its natural food supplies, malnutrition, disease, and starvation took their tolls. An ecosystem forced out of balance, the protected mule deer population plummeted to a few thousand survivors.

Okay, Sarah...get the picture? I believe you know what I'm getting at here...

While governor in Alaska, you were under pressure from your own version of my Florida blue claw crabber. Your successors will continue to be as well.

There are those who want to continue to exterminate wolves--shooting them from planes, and so forth--supposedly to protect game species like caribou for their own special interests...human hunting, to be more specific.

But, just as redfish lived in an ecological balance with crabs long before man was ever a consideration here, so too have predators everywhere lived--necessarily so--with other prey populations.

Madam Governor, you alienate thinking folks everywhere--the young, ecologically conscious, in particular--by endorsing such a blatantly cruel and repeatedly proven seriously flawed policy which I believe you yourself--a lover of nature and its essential balances--must know in your heart to be wrong.

I believe you potentially have a great political future ahead of you. Much of what you say and stand for is indeed admirable. Please consider reaching out to those Independents and others who might very well vote for you after a bit of reconsideration and fine tuning on your part of such issues as those dealt with above.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Israel and the Obama White House Rebuke

Posted by Yehoshua on Saturday, September 05, 2009 3:36:44 PM
A Proper Response To The White House Rebuke...

by Gerald A. Honigman



Hey, let's face it. Much of the world still prefers its Jews ghetto style, groveling Uncle Abes instead of Uncle Toms (note: the very word "ghetto" was originally coined for the Jewish experience).

Ironically, of all world leaders, the current American president should be tuned in to this problem the most; instead, he's among the worst offenders when it comes to this.

Recently the Obama White House rebuked Israel because it refuses to prostrate itself and say, "whatever you say, boss!"

On September 4th, Associated Press writer Matthew Lee reported that, "the White House said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's settlement plans were 'inconsistent' with commitments the Jewish state has made previously and harmful to U.S. attempts to lay the groundwork for a resumption in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians."

Horse manure! Do you really want to know what's "inconsistent?"

Try this one for starters...America's deliberate attempt to ignore--and to force Israel itself to ignore--what it is legitimately entitled to regarding the final draft of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in the wake of the Arabs' combined attempt on its life in 1967.

That war started after Egyptian Arabs blockaded Israel at the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba (a casus belli ), ordered the U.N.'s peace-keeping force out of Sinai and amassed over 100,000 troops, tanks, planes, and so forth in Gaza, right up to Israel's border in preparation for attack, and other well-documented hostile acts.

As has been often written but which needs to be constantly repeated to answer those such as the current American leader now rebuking Israel for refusing to forget this, Resolution 242 is as famous for what it did not say as for what it did.

As anyone who has studied this subject knows, among other things, there was no mention of a total withdrawal by Israel to the 1949, UN-imposed armistice lines--lines which made Israel a sub-rump state, a mere nine to fifteen miles wide at its strategic waist where most of its population and industry are located. Those Auschwitz lines were never meant to be final political borders. This was reinforced by a call for the creation of "secure and recognized borders" to replace those lines, which forever placed Israel at its neighbors' mercy as an easy, irresistible target for terror and invasion. Furthermore, any withdrawal by Israel at all was to be in the context of true treaties of peace, not ceasefires. The so-called moderate "peace" partners Israel now has won't it even grant it recognition and demand that it take steps towards its own suicide. There is a proper response for such "partners," but since I can't write it here, please use your imagination...

A reading of Great Britain's Lord Caradon, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Professor Eugene Rostow, America's U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, and other architects of 242 clearly shows that Israel was not expected to return to the deadly and absurd status quo ante. A fair, meaningful territorial compromise was thus called for. The Obama White House plays deaf, dumb, and blind to all of this, however.

So guess (three and the first two don't count) what the settlement issue, that Israel is now being rebuked for, is really all about?

As my students would say...well, duh, a no-brainer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the aftermath of the Six Day War, President Lyndon Johnson summarized the issue this way on June 19, 1967...

A return to the situation on June 4 [the day before outbreak of war] was not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.

He then called for new recognized boundaries that would provide security against terror, destruction, and war.

Johnson was supported by General Earle Wheeler of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and many others, as well. Here's a brief excerpt from Wheeler's Pentagon document prepared for Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on June 29, 1967...

Israel would require retention of some captured Arab territory to provide militarily defensible borders.

Keep in mind that in Judea and Samaria, aka the "West Bank," Israel took these lands in a defensive war from an illegal occupier --Transjordan --which subsequently renamed itself Jordan as a result of its 1949 illegal acquisition of non-apportioned lands of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine west of the Jordan River.

Transjordan--a purely Arab state in which no Jew was thenceforth allowed to live--was created itself in 1922 from some 80% of the total original 1920 territory. Regarding the non-apportioned areas of the Mandate, Jews as well as Arabs were legally entitled to live on those lands. Indeed, Jews have thousands of years of history linking them to those lands, owned property, and lived there up until their massacres by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s. Additionally, many, if not most, of the Arabs themselves were newcomers, pouring in -- as the Records of the Permanent Mandates Commission, quotes from Colonial Secretary and later Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and other solid evidence and documentation show -- from Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere in the region...Arabs creating Arab settlements in the Mandate of Palestine.

General Wheeler's document also envisioned Israel acquiring an adequate buffer zone atop the West Bank mountain ridge, in command of the high ground, giving it at least some semblance of an in-depth defense. Guess where most of the settlements of the Jews have subsequently been constructed?

A three-thousand mile wide, over 300 million-strong America --with two huge oceans buffering it--fights wars and has acquired territories (to which it had no historical ties) thousands of miles away from home in the name of its own national interests, but demands that the Jews once again become a 9-mile wide sub-rump state, baring the necks of their kids to those who deliberately target them for terror and disembowelment. That's what the White House "rebuke" is currently all about.

The alleged Fatah "moderates" of the latter day Arafatians, with the West's darling Mahmoud Abbas at the lead, have as much or more Jewish blood on their hands as the Hamas and Islamic Jihad crew. The latter are simply more honest to the West about their murderous intent. Both reveal their true rejectionist intentions to their own people in Arabic.

Moving ahead, here's what President Ronald Reagan had to say about all of this on September 1, 1982...

In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10-miles wide... the bulk of Israel's population within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.

In 1988, Secretary of State George Schultz declared... Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.

In the 1990s, during the Clinton years (and despite the later pressure brought to bear on Prime Minister Ehud Barak to sweeten the pot at Camp David and Taba in 2000, by offering Yasser Arafat far more than 242 called for), official policy, as expressed by Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1997, was that, "Israel is entitled to secure and defensible borders," a la 242.

Alright...enough of important background information.

President Obama and his long list of hostile, anti-Israel advisors and appointees are a marriage made in Heaven for the perpetually Arabist-dominated, anti-Israel crew of the State Department--folks who opposed the rebirth of Israel from the get-go.

Israel is entitled to a fair, territorial compromise in territories that it has been repeatedly attacked from and has thousands of years of historical connections to.

That Arabs--who claim the entire region as solely their own and who have continuously subjugated scores of millions of native, non-Arabs who have dared to disagree--refuse such a compromise is no shock. They refuse to recognize a sole, miniscule, 9-mile wide state for Jews let alone anything larger, while demanding a 22nd state of their own-- second, not first, Arab one created in the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine.

Demanding that Israel expose itself to those who want it destroyed--despite the word games of Abbas's "moderates"--needs to be rebuked...not Israel's refusal to cave in to America's first black president by saying, "yes, Massah."

My new book gets into all of this head on. Please check it out at http://q4j-middle-east.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Yes, Hillary...You're The Secretary of State

Posted by Yehoshua on Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:51:52 AM
                                                       Yes, Hillary...You're the Secretary of State

                                                                                                                                                  by Gerald A. Honigman

     So, we've all heard about Madam Secretary's little PMS episode by now, I guess.

     When being questioned abroad recently about what her husband Bill's take might be on some issue, she fired both barrels  off  in response, making sure all knew who the current Foreign Minister of the U.S.A. is. Turns out that there may have been a mistranslation of the question to boot.

     Hey, I'll admit that she had a bit of a point there, but still...

     Coming from Hillary, the current chief at the State Department, this was a bit ironic--or worse.

     The Foggy Folks have a long tradition of thinking that they're supposed to  run Israel's foreign policy, not Israel--to the point of demanding that the Jews take steps, such as arming those who still want them dead, returning to the armistice lines (not borders) which made Israel a mere 9-mile wide rump state before the '67 War, and so forth. Oh yes, the State Department demanded that there be no Israel at all in the first place--fighting President Truman's recognition of the Jewish State from the very beginning.

     Lately, Hillary and her Foggy crew have demanded that Jews not build nor live in parts of Jerusalem--a place Jews have called home for thousands of years...at a time when Hillary's ancestors were still worshipping fertility gods and stone idols. If Jews can't live in one part, does that mean Arabs can't live in the other?

     Yes, Hillary...indeed, you're the Secretary of State of the United States--not Bill.

     But please keep this in mind when you and your crew order Israel to shelve its own Secretary of State, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, because he refuses to grovel at your feet and cave in to your constantly  unfair and suicidal demands on his tiny, beleaguered nation--the best ally America has, not only in the Middle East, but just about anywhere.

     Avigdor Lieberman is Israel's Foreign Minister...not you, Hillary.

     And unlike a 3,000 mile wide America with two vast oceans buffering it, Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of folks who still want it dead--regardless of all the whitewashing that's being done by the Foggy crew  to force a peace of the grave plan down Israel's throat.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dershowitz vs. Phillips--Obama and the Settlements

Posted by Yehoshua on Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:46:29 PM

                                                   You Can't Have It Both Ways...Dershowitz vs. Phillips

                                                                                                    by Gerald A. Honigman

 

 

 

     FrontPageMagaine.com always has interesting stuff--whether you agree with it or not.

 

     Friday July 24th's Symposium featured a debate between two respected defenders of Israel, Melanie Phillips and Alan Dershowitz.

 

     Back in the '70s, I recall a major event at Ohio State University at which Harvard's Professor Dershowitz was invited to debate a fellow National Lawyers Guild (NLG) colleague at OSU's law school, Professor John Quigley.

 

     Quigley was/is a well-known anti-Israel (as in its very existence) spokesman who made the rounds spouting such wisdom as "if Jews can have a state, why not Catholics?" I know...I followed him several times to nail his derriere in public.

 

     Now let's understand something...

 

     The NLG is universally described as a "Progressive/Leftist" organization. Today, that translates into blatantly anti-Israel as well. So, members like Dershowitz have a very hard time dealing with such membership. "Liberal" today isn't what our grandparents' "Liberal" was. But, it's still hard for some to digest that, for too many, today's "Liberal" is too often also an extreme Leftist, minimally anti-Zionist, and often a closet or open anti-Semite as well.

 

     Before going any further, I don't need anyone explaining to me the need to care for others. I get that from my own Judaic roots (the Torah, Hebrew Prophets, and so forth) and my own sense of justice G_d thankfully instilled in me. So, I don't require lectures from the likes of NLG folks.

 

     Now, Dershowitz did not debate Quigly. I seem to recall that the latter refused to engage him. So, someone else was called in for the debate instead. The audience was huge, and the substitute was mediocre.

 

     Okay--enough of a background...

 

     Dershowitz makes some good points as does Phillips in their writings and in their debate; however, there is no doubt that the esteemed Lady has a greater grasp of the realities which Israel faces.

 

     Yet both--Dershowitz far more than Phillips--seem to miss perhaps the key point related to their debate over settlements' issue and President Obama's opposition to them.

 

     Paying mere lip service to UNSC Resolution 242 without acknowledging the link between the settlements issue and it is useless. And that's exactly what Dershowitz routinely does.

 

     I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the good professor may have to travel farther to go from his nice, safe home to work than the state of Israel is in width according to the '49 armistice lines imposed upon it in 1949. Most of those lines were merely the points at which the hostilities stopped after about a half dozen Arab armies attacked the nascent Israeli state in 1948. As would become the pattern, the U.N. did nothing to stop the initial Arab aggression, but stepped in only after the Jews had turned the tide to minimize Arab losses.

 

    As has been repeated often, after the Arabs' renewed attempt at Israel's destruction backfired badly in June 1967, the much-debated final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 was worded in such a deliberate, precise way as to permit Israel to finally gain secure, defensible, and real borders instead of what has been called the "Auschwitz"/armistice lines which made it nine to sixteen miles wide at its strategic waist, where most of its population and industry are located, that it had prior to then. The latter were just a constant invitation to Arabs to cut the country in half in some future combined assault.

 

     The quotes below have also been presented frequently to make the point. Nevertheless, they have to be resurrected time and again to answer those who demand that the sole, minisculestate of the Jews ignore its own minimal, vital security interests for the sake of creating a twenty-second state for Arabs (and  second one in the original 1920 borders of the Palestine Mandate-- Jordan having been created from almost 80% of the total land in 1922).

      A reading of Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg, and other architects of 242 clearly shows that after the June '67 war Israel was not expected to return to the deadly and absurd status quo ante.

     Britain's Lord Caradon...

    "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them."

      President Lyndon Johnson summarized the situation this way on June 19, 1967:

     " A return to the situation on June 4 (the day before outbreak of war) was not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities." He then called for "new recognized boundaries that would provide security against terror, destruction, and war."

     Johnson was then backed up by General Earle Wheeler of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and many others as well. Here's a brief excerpt from Wheeler's Pentagon document prepared for Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on June 29, 1967:

"...Israel would require retention of some captured Arab territory to provide militarily defensible borders."

     Keep in mind that on the West Bank, Israel took these lands in a defensive war from an illegal occupant--Transjordan--which subsequently renamed itself Jordan as a result of its 1949 illegal acquisition of non-apportioned lands of the original 1920 Mandate west of the Jordan River that Jews as well as Arabs were legally entitled to live on. Indeed, Jews have thousands of years of history connecting them to these lands and owned property and lived there up until their massacres by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s. Additionally, many, if not most, of the Arabs themselves were also relative newcomers, pouring in--as the Records of the Permanent Mandates Commission and other documentation show--from Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere in the region.

     Once again utilizing Ambassador Dore Gold's useful summary, here's what President Ronald Reagan had to say about all of this on September 1, 1982:

     "In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10-miles wide...the bulk of Israel's population within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."

     In 1988, Secretary of State George Shultz declared, "Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders."

     And even in the 1990s, during the Clinton years (and despite the later pressure brought to bear on Prime Minister Ehud Barak to sweetin' the pot by offering Arafat far more than 242 called for at Camp David and Taba in 2000), official policy, as expressed by Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1997, was still that, "Israel is entitled to secure and defensible borders," a la 242.

     The point, of course, is that to take a brush under the rug approach to this crucial issue as Dershowtiz and other "Progressive" supporters of Israel do (other nations have acquired territories far away from home in the name of their own national security interests, let alone Israel, which has historic claims itself to the lands in question and which has been repeatedly attacked from those lands) is to not understand the fundamental importance of the settlements issue now on center stage.

     Regardless of the religious argument for Judea and Samaria (i.e., the West Bank),  if that didn't exist, the vision of an Israel finally seeing the travesty of the '49 armistice lines rectified demands  the creation of those very settlements which are at issue now.

     Most, if not all, of the settlements are built on the very high ground areas envisioned and permitted by 242 to create the buffer to give Israel those relatively secure, defensible borders to help protect the heartland of the Jewish State.

     Will Arabs "recognize" this--as is also stated in 242?

     Of course not...They don't recognize a Jewish State that is nine-miles wide, let alone anything bigger.

    But Israel can't wait for Arab recognition from either an Arafatian Abbas or Hamas that will never come before it acts. It must draw its final lines which represent a reasonable territorial compromise a la 242 and progress and set policy from there--regardless of the flack that it will surely catch from the assorted worldwide hypocrites and practitioners of the double standard.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Kurds...Their Time Has Come

Posted by Yehoshua on Friday, July 10, 2009 8:53:43 PM

                                                                                                                                                    Hallelujah...It's About Time!

                                                                                                                                                                                  by Gerald A. Honigman

 

     Finally, at long last, another native people, besides Arabs, is staking its claims to a slice of the justice pie in the Middle East--a region proclaimed by Arabs to be solely their own, despite the presence of scores of millions of native, non-Arab peoples in those lands.

     A story by Sam Dagher in the July 10th New York Times reported that Kurds were going ahead staking claims to the huge fossil fuel deposits sitting under land in northern Iraq on which they have lived for thousands of years before an Arab ever arrived there. It was land promised to Kurds as an independent state after World War I, but was aborted on behalf of Arab nationalism in collusion with British petroleum politics--especially after the League of Nations' Mosul decision in 1925. A united,  Arab-dominated Iraq arose instead in the British Mandate of Mesopotamia, with the oil of the Kurdish north attached to it. The British miltary helped suppress the Kurds' response to this.

      As I have written for years now, while the dreams of a viable, federal Iraq looked good on paper, in reality, they were most probably merely American pipedreams--as well-intentioned as they were.

      Long ago, Arab nationalism won out over a multi-ethnic Iraqi nationalism in the land, and hundreds of thousands of Kurds have been slaughtered by Arabs. Arabs have spoken of any Kurdish independence as the creation of another Israel; i.e., how dare anyone but themselves stake any political claim in the region.  Keep in mind that one half of Israel's Jews were refugees from so-called "Arab"/Muslim lands.

      The Times reported that Susan Shihab, a member of Kurdistan’s parliament, said she no longer had faith that the rights of Kurds under the federal constitution from 2005 would be respected.

     She has a lot of company in this line of thought--including anyone who has objectively followed the quest of non-Arab peoples for any semblance of respect and equality in "Arab" lands.

     Berbers in North Africa are now being told that they must name their children with Arab/Islamic names, and both they and Syrian Kurds are not even allowed to use their own non-Arab languages --as just a few of too many other examples of this blatant Arab racism. And the same United Nations still having hissy fits over Israel's security fence (designed to keep Arabs from murdering its kids), continues to act deaf, dumb, and blind about the Arab subjugation of tens of millions of non-Arab peoples.

     The West and the current and last several  American administrations in particular are and have been determined to create the Arabs' state #22, their second one in the original 1920 Palestine Mandate. Jordan was created from  the lions' share of the land after 1922.

     That that new Arab state, run by Mahmud Abbas and his "moderate" Fatah, will no doubt be hostile to its tiny  Jewish neighbor and sees "negotiations" only in terms of its earlier,  openly-professed Trojan Horse and destruction-in-phases scenario planned for Israel is a given. Hamas, to its credit, is simply more honest and won't even indulge in word games regarding the acceptance or rejection of Israel.

     Despite this, the world is intent on shoving what will likely be yet another Arab terror base down Israel's throat--but this time, Tel Aviv, Israel's Parliament, main airport, main seaport, Jerusalem, most of its population in its narrow  nine to fifteen mile wide waist, and so forth will become the main Arab targets (this time courtesy of American arms)--not more remote areas like Sderot in the south, after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza several years ago. Recall the ten thousand rockets and mortars launched from Gaza against Israeli civilian centers after that withdrawal. There's a lesson to be learned from that by anyone with functioning neurons...

      Unlike Arabs vis-a-vis "their" kilab yahud Jew dogs,  Kurds don't want to deprive Arabs of their own just, due rights and have never terrorized Arabs. The problem  has always been that most Arabs define their rights in terms which negate any at all for everybody else.

     Where, for example, is it written that Arabs are entitled to have sole claim, with the exception of Iran, over all of the region's fossil fuel deposits?

     The oil in the region around Kirkuk sits on Kurdish land. It is as Kurdish as the Arabian Peninsula's  is Arab. That Saddam and his Sunnis forcibly Arabized the area earlier did not change this.

     The Kurds have learned their lessons from the not-so-distant past regarding America, the Brits, and their Arab neighbors. Both the Brits and America used and abused Kurds repeatedly for their own interests--then abandoned them to Arabs who slaughtered them en masse soon afterwards.

      Shi'a Arabs have recently been more tolerant towards Kurds than their Sunni counterparts because they needed Kurds as a counterweight to Sunnis who repeatedly blow the Shi'a apart. But, thanks to America's overthrow of Saddam,  the Shi'a are now in the ascendancy, and they too have no intention of granting any non-Arabs their just due. Kurds know this, and hence the current developments as reported in The New York Times.

     If the world's roadmap insists that Arabs must have a 22nd state, then it is certainly well overdue for thirty-five million truly stateless Kurds to at long last gain their one.

     Anything less--despite the potential problems (and there won't be problems creating a latter-day Arafatian Fatahland or Hamastan?)--will be sheer, nauseating hypocrisy.

    On January 5, 2010, my book dealing with this overall topic will be released for the new book year. It is titled, The Quest For Justice...The Arab-Israeli Conflict In Greater Perspective.

     Please watch for it. It is not just another book about the Middle East.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »