About Me

Name: Yehoshua
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Apology Not Accepted

 

                                                                                                                                                                   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...

                                                                      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

 

                                                                                                                                            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


                                                                                                                                                  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

 

                                                                                           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...

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

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

                                                       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


                                                   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

                                                                                                                                                    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

Mousavi, Ahmadinejad, and Israel





Mousavi, Ahmadinejad, and Israel         

               
by Gerald A. Honigman



     You know, this really isn't difficult to understand.

     But, some background first...

     One would think, with all the hatred towards Jews and Israel spewing forth out of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs' mouths, that Iran has always been the bitter enemy of the Jewish nation.

      Not so...in fact, the Korash Prism is an ancient Iranian document which gives testimony to Cyrus the Great's decree allowing the Jews to return to Judea, freeing them from their captivity in Babylon in 539 B.C.E. It corroborates the Jews' own Biblical account beautifully in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. And then there is the Book of Esther, again, in the Hebrew Bible as well, again testifying to this age-old relationship between these two ancient peoples.

     Jews were grateful to their powerful Iranian liberators and served in their armies throughout their empire. At the fortress in Elephantine, Egypt, for example ancient documents related to this were discovered along with a synagogue built there for Jewish soldiers serving under the Iranian ruler.

     Centuries later, when Judea fought for its freedom and independence against the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries C.E, it was Iran, again, which came to the Jews' aid. And centuries later still, on the eve of the Arab explosion out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E., ancient documents record a Jewish army aligning  itself with Iran against the hated Byzantines.

     So, what happened?

     Well, for one thing, there was that not-so-little thing briefly mentioned above...the Arab conquest.

     After Muhammad and his successor imperial, Caliphal armies burst out of the Peninsula in all directions, both Israel/Judea/Palestina and Iran fell to the Arabs' jihad in the spread of their Dar ul-Islam.

     In the Middle East, especially, often internal differences due to ethnic and national conflict are reflected in religious expression. The Khorasani and other mawali--disgruntled Iranian converts to Islam--thus became followers of the martyred 'Ali...Shiites...in opposition to the brand of Islam of their Arab conquerors, the Sunni Umayyads. They supported the Abbasids, who would soon conquer the Umayyad seat of Sunni Arabism in Damascus. Baghdad would next become the new capital of Islam. Struggles between the Shi'a and Sunni continued, but by the 16th century the former became the adopted religion of state by Iran's Safavid Shahs.

     While the fate of Jews under both branches of Islam was fragile, to say the least, in some ways it was even worse at the hands of the Shi'a.

      Thus, as the centuries progressed in a henceforth Muslim Iran--and a Shia one, at that--Jews would soon find themselves in an awkward position whereby their very lives and livelihoods depended upon a powerful, more secular political ruler (Shah) who could act more on their collective behalf against the powerful force of the hostile religious establishment, the ulema and the mullahs. 

     While some pre-Islamic problems are noted in the Book of Esther, the fate of Iranian Jews had far more ups and downs clear up to the present time due to the situation brought on with the Arab Muslim conquest of the land. And since Jews were largely dependent on the political power of the Shahs, if the latter were unjust or whatever, the masses--stirred up by the mullahs-- frequently took it out on the Jews.

     Okay...let's jump to the present.

     Recently, Iran held a presidential election in which the mullahs' front man, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supposedly defeated Mir Hossein Mousavi. Major demonstrations against Ahmadinejad and the mullahs have broken out by numerous people who feel that the election was stolen. The mullahs' Revolutionary Guards have given warning that their patience is wearing thin.

     Whatever the differences in foreign policy which might exist between the two candidates (probably not many), the protests are mainly over internal matters...freedom, in all of its true democratic forms, as the main example.

     And this, my friends, is the real reason for folks like Ahmanejad's professed hatred of the Jews and the Jew of the Nations...

     Undemocratic, oppressive dictators always make sure that they have at least one great, external bogeyman to channel internal frustration, unrest, and violence against.

     Who better than the world's scapegoat and whipping post par excellence...the Jew?

     Hopefully, more and more Iranian people will start to see through this injustice as they rethink that age-old relationship between their own nation and that of the Jews.

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

M.E.Envoy George Mitchell's Moral Equivalency Dance

 
                                                                                                                      Jeez, Ain't That Nice?
                                                                                                                                      by Gerald A. Honigman
  
 
 
     I mean, all that balanced moral equivalence and stuff. I just get goosebumps.
 
     I recently received my Jerusalem Online Updates on the computer and, sure enough, there's President Obama's Mid East envoy, George Mitchell, stating that the U.S. won't turn its back on Palestinians.
 
     As if Washington ever did...
 
     Since Mitchell had, not long before, said something similar about Israel, how nice of him to balance the two!
 
     Ready?
 
     Short, sweet, and to the point...
 
     Here's how Arabs and their assorted mouthpieces define "turning your back on the Palestinians":
 
     Allowing for a viable--if miniscule--State of the Jews to still be around after Arabs get their 22nd state and second one in the original April 25, 1920 borders of the Mandate of Palestine...Jordan sitting on some 80% of the original territory.
 
     As has to be repeated ad nauseum because Arabs repeat their lies ad nauseum, after Arab nationalism got the lion's share of the land as a gift from the Brits in 1922, Arabs then refused subsequent partition plans--including the one in 1947 which would have awarded them about half of the 20% of the territory still remaining. Ten percent was still too much for the Jews...or any of the scores of millions of other non-Arab peoples who dared ask for a slice of justice for themselves in the region after the break-up of the centuries old Ottoman Turkish Empire. As I feel necessary to repeat...Arabs simply claimed the whole shebang as purely Arab patrimony.
 
     Arab "justice"--i.e., not turning your back on them--thus translates into caving in to all of their subjugating demands.
 
     And, if you don't agree, you have then, by their definition, "turned your back on them."
 
     Take the alleged Saudi Peace (of the grave) Plan as the latest case in point--the one President Obama has stated Israel would be crazy to refuse. Here 'tis in a nutshell:
 
     If Israel (and not a Jewish Israel) "merely" agrees to return to its pre-'67, 9-mile wide '49 armistice line--not border--existence; forsakes the territorial compromise allowed it by the final draft of UNSC resolution 242; and agrees to be swamped by millions of "returning" jihadist refugees raised from the cradle to the grave on non-stop Jew-hatred (many, if not most, of whom were new-comers themselves into the Palestinian Mandate--so much so that UNRWA had to redefine the very word "refugee" to accommodate them) created because the Arab attempt to nip a reborn Israel in the bud backfire...along with everything else that the Arabs demand for the Jewish State's suicide...then the Saudis and other Arabs might normalize relations with Israel.
 
    What a deal! Something a three-thousand mile wide America would accept with enemies sworn to its own destruction, right?
 
     A "deal," that is, until Israel takes one too many breaths Arabs say it is alloted. 
 
     And then the intangible Arab promises disappear (taqiyyah--legitimate Arab/Muslim lying, to further the cause, to the Infidel), while the concrete, tangible concessions of Israel's very survivability have been abandoned due to pressure from its American, Munich-style friends.
 
     There is and never has been any moral equivalence in this conflict.
 
     To any truly objective observer, those admittedly imperfect Jews have indeed bent over backwards, sideways, and forwards to reach an honorable solution with those--Arabs--who forcibly Arabize and/or outlaw scores of millions of Imazighen/Berbers in North Africa, Kurds in Syria and Iraq, Copts in Egypt, and so forth from such things as speaking their own language, practicising their own non-Arab cultures, building their own places of worship, naming their own children non-Arab names, and so forth...Then massacring those who might disagree. Think Arab subjugation, rape, enslavement, and genocide against black Africans in the Sudan (decades before Darfur), the Arab Anfal Campaign against Kurds in Iraq, and so forth. The title of the Kurdish nationalist, Ismet Cherif Vanly's, 1968 book, The Syrian 'Mein Kampf' Against The Kurds, says it all.
 
     You know...those same Arabs who scream about "racist Zionists" who made Arabic the second national language of the State of Israel, have Arabs in the Knesset (Parliament) who openly side with Hamas, have the freest Arabs living anywhere outside of the West (despite some problems due to the non-stop tension), etc.
 
     A piece of advice to Mr. Netanyahu before I end this...
 
     Stick to your position about recognizing that 22nd Arab state.
 
     With crucial modifications, the Saudi Peace Plan might be something to think about--i.e., nix any Arab refugees returning to overwhelm you from within...the Arab game plan as of today.
 
     And nix a return to the mostly suicidal Auschwitz/armistice lines--not borders--of '49,  imposed upon Israel by the U.N. after it stood by and watched Israel being invaded by a half dozen Arab armies and did nothing until the Jews finally turned back their would-be executioners. The lines only marked the point where the hostilities were halted. Israel was not resurrected to merely become a sub-rump state.
 
     Justice demands nothing less.
 
     When Arabs demonstrate that they truly want real peace and are not still playing their well-known Trojan Horse, Hudna (like Muhammad's "Peace of the Quraysh," the ceasefire the Muslim Prophet agreed to until he gathered the strength to wipe out his enemies), and  Destruction-in-Phases games--all in the words of the Arabs' own so-called "moderates," by the way--then something else may become possible down the road.
 
     Finally, please watch for my book coming out shortly on these very issues and more, The Quest For Justice In The Middle East...The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Greater Perspective.

 

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

Obama, Cairo...and, My New Book!


                                                                                                Obama, Settlements, and the Missing Two-State-Solutions

                                                                                                                                                       by Gerald A. Honigman

 

     President Barack Obama's long-awaited speech to the Muslim World in Cairo had some important, positive elements in it. He is to be commended for that.

     Among other things, he spelled out the need for Arabs and other  Muslims to get a handle on their own extremists;  defined, then stressed, the importance of true democracy while speaking in a nation run by modern-day Pharaohs; emphasized the importance of equal rights for women; and so forth.

     When speaking of the need for all peoples to get along, the President even dared to speak the word "Copt"--once...then dropped it like a hot potato. But this, too, was sort of courageous--if short-lasting--given the extreme touchiness of the subject.  After all, this wasn't  Israel he was speaking in--nor  poor Arabs--er Palestinians--he was crying about.

     The Copts, after all, were/are  the millions of native people who were conquered and forcibly Arabized--like much of the rest of the Middle East--after the Arabs burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E. and spread in all directions.

     Unlike Hindus, Buddhists, and other non-"Peoples of the Book(primarily Christians and Jews)," Copts were not given an ultimatum to convert to Islam en masse or die (yet many, indeed, have been murdered).

     The  latter Ahl al-Kitab above were allowed to live as long as they accepted their subjugated status as dhimmis--"protected" people...that is, as long as they paid their special taxes and such to their Arab Muslim masters. Know your place, and it was possible to prosper.

     The Uncle Tom Copt supreme, the late President Sadat's Foreign Minister and later Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, offered that Israel must consent to the same Arabization if it wanted to be accepted in the "Arab World." I don't think you want to know my feelings about such "acceptance."

     Now, of course, this all begs the question--or at least should...

     Why was there only one brief word by our President about Copts--without defining their plight or saying anything else about them--but, unabashedly later, he felt free to lead the Arab choir in taking Israel to task about the plight of the "Palestinians (mostly Arabs whose families came from somewhere else--despite their taqiyyah , legitimate lying to the Infidel--tales of woe)?

     There are more native Copts in Egypt than Palestinian (however you define that) Arabs.

     I understand the Arabs' demand that virtually the whole region be seen as just their own--purely Arab patrimony as they tell it. But why does an American President have to play along with this subjugating mindset ? He mentioned the word "Darfur" also. Does he also not know who the perpetrators of the Sudan's genocidal actions are? But, again, one word...and dropped--like Copt--like a hot potato.

     While it was nice to hear the President lecture the Muslim world about the Holocaust, he played right into their hands once again--at least those, unlike Ahmadinejad of Iran and the President's good buddy, Mahmoud Abbas, who do not deny that it ever happened.

     The Arab believers' typical answer is, why should we have to pay for the sins of Europe?

     Now, there was a way that Mr. Obama could have handled the subject  correctly that would have been light years better--if he had really wanted to. But that's another point where his attempt at courage failed him.

     One half of Israel's Jews are from refugee families from the Arab/Muslim World. Over another million more of these folks live in France, America, and elsewhere--the refugees hardly anyone ever talks about. They were known as kilab yahud--Jew dogs--and, like Copts (only worse), also  never knew what the morrow would bring living as dhimmis amid Arab Muslim masters. Massacres, forced conversions, expulsions, constant humiliations, and so forth were certainly not unknown to the killers of Prophets and  the sons of apes and pigs.

     While the President once again lectured about those allegedly horrid Israeli settlements (how dare a Jew demand to once again be allowed to live in Judea?), which we'll get to shortly, why was he silent about millions of native Kurds in Syria and Imazighen/Berbers in North Africa who have had their own languages and cultures outlawed and have been slaughtered if they dare to protest? The latter have been told that they can't even name their children with their own native names and must use Arab Islamic ones instead. But, let's all complain about settlements instead...

     Why demand a roadmap for the Arabs' state # 22 (second, not first, in the original April 25, 1920 borders of the Mandate of Palestine--Arab Jordan being created after 1922 on some 80% of the total area)--but not demand likewise for some thirty-five million truly stateless, non-Arab Kurds or justice for tens of millions of non-Arab Imazighen?

     The President's focus on Muslim extremism was indeed important, but why did he yield to the assertion that the Arabs' demand for their additional state--nearly two dozen in total-- was somehow equivalent to the Jews' demand that their own sole, resurrected nation not be destroyed in granting that Arab wish?

     Mr. Obama can whisper or shout sweet pleasantries all that he wants to about a two-state solution (at least referring to Jews and Arabs--forget about any rights for those others and more mentioned above), but he knows full well that that Saudi Peace (of the grave) Plan he said Israel would be crazy not to accept calls for Israel to be inundated by millions of so-called "returning" Arab refugees, raised on murderous Jew-hatred for decades, and for Israel to return to its pre-'67 , nine-mile wide Auschwitz/armistice line--not border--existence.

     In other words-- a plan to convert Israel into another Arab state..."peacefully,"  the Saudi Peace Plan in a nutshell. That's why, to this date, Abbas--the alleged good cop--swears he'll never recognize a Jewish State of Israel.

     Blown buses bring bad press...so, there's more than one way to skin the Jewish cat (especially with America supplying the pliers)!

     Now think about this a minute...

     President Obama demands that Jews stop building for normal growth in Jewish population centers resurrected in Judea and Samaria--aka only in the past century as "the West Bank." He includes Jerusalem in this too. The area, by the way, is non-apportioned territory of the Mandate--open to settlement by Arabs and Jews alike...not "Palestinian territory" as is frequently claimed. Jews lived and owned property there until the Arab massacres of the 1920s and 1930s.

     After the Arab attempt on Israel's life failed in 1967, the architects of the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 did not expect Israel to return to the vulnerable '49 armistices line of the status quo ante.

     242 called for the creation of secure and recognized borders to replace those lines, and any Israeli withdrawal at all was to be in the context of true peace treaties--not hudna schmudna cease fires. The aim was to give Israel some semblance of defensible borders, which it never had before--a constant temptation to those who would cut it in half in an armored attack, and so forth. Arabs had indeed already tried this before.

     Here's  Britain's Lord Caradon, chief architect of the final draft of 242, on the matter:

      We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say  'all ' the territories deliberately. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.

     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."

    President Ronald Reagan, 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."

     And in 1988, Secretary of State George Shultz declared...

     "Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders."

     So, are ya ready?

     Here's my question to President Obama and the rest of the non-Arab world, lecturing Israel in Cairo and elsewhere non-stop. I leave out Arabs because they don't accept a 9-mile wide Jewish State of Israel (but claim some two dozen "Arab" states--most created out of non-Arab peoples' territory--for themselves), so nix any idea of them accepting anything bigger:

     Where is Israel to get that territorial compromise over the disputed territories 242 promises if not in those "settlements" Mr. Obama complains about in a very small portion of Judea and Samaria?

     I repeat...Israel was not expected to pull back to the suicidal armistice lines imposed upon it by the United Nations after it turned back the deadly assault of a half dozen Arab armies on it upon its rebirth in 1948. As would come to happen far too often later, the U.N. only stepped in after the Jews had turned the tide. It did nothing but watch when Israel was immediately attacked. Likewise, it withdrew its peacekeeping force in Sinai as soon as Egypt's Nasser said to do so--after the latter set up his blockade of Israel at the Straits of Tiran--a casus belli.

     America and other nations have fought wars and acquired territories thousands of miles away from home in the name of their national defense and security interests.

     Is it really that hard for an intelligent American President to understand that Israel lives in a very nasty neighborhood and so requires a bit more depth to buffer itself from its committed, would-be executioners--no matter how much whitewash he pours over them?

     The settlements issue Mr. Obama implies is the equivalent to Arabs not blowing  Jews  apart really comes down to this...

     Given the situation Israel constantly faces (look at a map of the world...I dare you to find Israel without  using a magnifying glass), does it not have a right to have a border which makes it wider in mileage than the distance Michelle Obama has to travel to buy shoes at the local shopping mall?

     Finally, please watch for my book coming out shortly on these very issues and more, The Quest For Justice In The Middle East--The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Greater Perspective.

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

The European Union...Et Tu, Czechs?

 

                                                                                                                                                        Et Tu, Czechs?

                                                                                                                                           by Gerald A. Honigman

 

 

     Nauseating...but I'll get to that later.

     Israel has finally opened up its collective eyes and once again elected leaders who are willing to assert that Israel is indeed a sovereign nation and will act like one. The last Israeli leadership virtually relinquished Israel's sovereignty to the wishes of an American State Department which fought against Israel's rebirth in the first place and has been mostly hostile ever since.

     The first duty of any sovereign nation--whether an America which stretches 3,000 miles from coast to coast, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, China, or a miniscule Israel--must be the safety of its people. The security and survival of the sole Jewish State should not be placed in jeopardy so that Arabs can have their twenty-second.

     With the exception of Israel in those above examples, all others have travelled thousands of miles away from home to fight wars over perceived national interests. Additionally, all--including America--have conquered and acquired lands belonging to others in the name of their own respective manifest destinies and so forth.

     As I've written earlier, the ascendancy of Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister and his appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister are causing massive outcries among those who prefer their Jews ghetto-style instead, begging to just be allowed to exist.

     Bibi and Lieberman's alleged crimes? They demand that Arabs show true accountability and commitment to real peace before agreeing to any further territorial concessions and demand loyalty from all of Israel's citizens--Arabs included.

     Whereas Bibi's predecessor, Ehud Olmert,  acted blindly towards Israeli Arab intimidation, terrorism, and repeated acts of treason within Israel proper, perpetrated by the freest Arabs living anywhere in the region (Israel), Lieberman has said that such acts will finally be handled the same way any other sane nation would do in order to survive. For this, he has been branded a racist extremist by the same folks  who have watched Arabs enslave, gas, murder, subjugate, wage genocide against, and forcibly Arabize millions of non-Arabs in the region.

     Foreign Ministers of  the European Union recently met to discuss how they will deal with the new, non-groveling Jews. All are determined to force Israel to agree to disregard sanity, the facts, and its vital national security interests.

     While all--including America's new President--demand that the Netanyahu government announce its acceptance of the alleged "two-state" solution, none have confronted the alleged Arab moderates about their own open, continuous rejection of Israel as a Jewish State...the same Arab rejection which has prevented peace between Arab and Jew right from the getgo.

     President Obama and the EU's moderate buddy, Abbas has demanded that Israel allow itself to be swamped by millions of alleged Arab refugees--after its forced retreat to the sub-rump state status of the '49 armistice lines. Obama claims that Israel would be nuts to reject such a "peace" (the Saudi plan) that would essentially turn Israel into yet another de facto Arab state.

     That twenty-one nations--with scores of millions of non-Arabs living in them--are declared to be Arab, members of the Arab League (the PLO having observer status as the 22nd state in waiting), and press the claim that virtually the entire region is purely Arab patrimony, none of this is of interest to those who recently met in Prague in the former Czechoslovakia, now the Czech Republic, to complain about Israel's new, "anti-peace" government.

     Now add to this another fact that some of us insist on repeating since Arabs and their supporters constantly pretend otherwise...

     What the European Union, America, and most of the rest of the world is really calling for is not a two-state solution, but a three-state solution. They're demanding that a second Arab state--not first--emerge within the original Mandatory borders of Palestine.

     That the modern state of Jordan was carved out of almost 80% of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate of Palestine and was handed over by Colonial Secretary Churchill to Arab nationalism in 1922 is indeed relevant to all of this. So, again, the proposed new state--created after forcing Israel back to its suicidal, 1949 armistice lines, not borders--will be the Arabs' second, not first in "Palestine."

      Regarding these recent developments, Britain's Middle East envoy, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, has repeatedly and forcibly told reporters and others, "we need a combination of strong political negotiations towards a two-state solution..." Translate this as meaning tightening the screws, again, on the Jews regardless of the fact that what Israel got after its total withdrawal from Gaza--non-stop Arab terror, death, and destruction from thousands of Arab mortars, rockets, and so forth launched into Israel proper--will be the likely scenario after its forced withdrawal from virtually all of the "West Bank"...once again making Judea Judenrein. But this time, courtesy of its "friends" ( a lesson the Czechs should know all-too-well), a nine to fifteen mile wide Israel will have its capital, main airport, key population and industrial centers, and such exposed as the main targets.

     Blair, like many of his American political counterparts who also move through the revolving doors of business and government (Condoleezza Rice already has had one oil tanker named after her), has undoubtedly learned to milk the Arab petrodollar teat for all that it's worth. As just a few other examples, former State Department Secretary James Baker III, former Presidents Carter and Clinton,  as well as the entire Bush family are certainly no strangers to this either.

     While lots could be said about the hypocrisy of other European sycophants to the Arab potentate petrodollar, let's just stick with the Brits for now and only deal with just a few of the many aspects to their hypocrisy. The other nation which  I'll focus upon and which should be even more shamed will continue to emerge as we proceed...

     That Blair is allegedly concerned about peace should be a good thing, correct? Now, who could complain about that? Or does Tony believe that Netanyahu actually enjoys having Israel's kids and other innocents constantly targeted by his Arab pals? In a gesture to President Obama, Israel had recently caved,  removed some road blocks to make Arab travel easier--and just had a teenager axed to death and another one seriously wounded as a result.

     The problem, of course, is what we mean by "peace."

 

     You see, Bibi and Lieberman are finally calling for the Arabs to clearly define this--and that's deemed to be too much to ask of Arabs by their assorted supporters and derriere-kissers.

 

     One of Blair's predecessors, after all, had promised the former Czechoslovakia and the rest of the world "peace" over a half century ago at Munich. Hitler claimed he only wanted the Sudetenland, that part of Czechoslovakia which had millions of ethnic Germans in it...

 

     So, the Czechs and Slovaks (who had a respectable army) were sold out to Hitler in 1938 by their so-called "friends," Britain's Neville Chamberlain & Co. The world was soon at war anyway after the Nazi invasion of Poland.

 

      Blair and Britain's Foreign Minister, David Miliband, who recently called for the recognition of Hamas (an organization totally dedicated to Israel's destruction), know full well that even their darling Abbas's latter-day Arafatian "moderates" call all dealings with Israel merely a "Trojan Horse" that is used to win diplomatically what could not be won on the battlefield-- advancing the Arabs' well-known, decades' old destruction in phases strategy for Israel's demise.

 

     There is no difference between Hamas and Abbas vis-a-vis Israel in the long term. Abbas is willing to play the game to gain dhimmi gelt and support against his rivals.Recall that he isalso Arafat's (of Swiss bank account fame) hand-picked, Fatah successor.

 

     The Brits are no dummies when it comes to the Middle East. They've been meddling in it for centuries. Among numerous other results of this, some thirty-five million Kurds remain stateless to date because of their earlier shenanigans.

 

     Who amongst the EU Foreign Ministers is calling for a two-state solution in Iraq--the former Mandate of Mesopotamia--where Kurds were indeed promised independence after World War I?  And is anyone--especially the French, the former colonial rulers--calling for a state for tens of millions of long-oppressed, murdered, and subjugated Imazighen/Berbers in "Arab" North Africa? Where were the Foreign Ministers in Prague who threatened "Arab" Sudan with action if does not stop its racist, genocidal policies against its black population? Etc. and so forth...

 

     Better yet, if there must be another two-state solution involving Arabs, why not demand it in the master hypocrite Ahmadinejad's own nation?

 

     Iran's oil-rich western province of Khuzestan was known as Arabistan for centuries due to its primarily Arab population. Iranians have violently suppressed the latter in the name of their own national interests...all while demanding that Israel commit national suicide to achieve some other Arabs' aspirations.

 

     What makes matters even worse is that the  Brits also know the difference firsthand  between a hudna--the most that even those Arab "moderates" offer to Israel--andrealpeace.

 

     The former, modeled after what the Prophet Muhammad offered up to his enemies until he could muster the strength to deliver the final blow (the Peace of the Quraysh), is but a temporary respite from hostilities. One does not give away the store nor bare the necks of one's innocents--the Arabs' targets of choice--for such a "deal."

 

     Moving to  the other side of the world,  several decades ago, the Brits were engaged thousands of miles away from home, just a few hundred miles off the coast of Argentina.

 

     The Falklands War was fought in the name of Great Britain's national interests and sovereignty.

 

     Now think about this long and hard when you hear the Brits pretend that Israel has no right to be concerned over the violent happenings on its very doorstep and in its very backyard and the need for those secure borders--not armistice lines--promised to it after the 1967 War by the final draft of UNSC resolution 242 (which Britain's own Lord Caradon was one of the chief architects of).

 

     Closer to home, does anyone recall what the movie Braveheart was all about? Have a good chat with the Scots, Irish, and so forth about was done in the name of His or Her Majesty's realm...

 

     Okay, the stench of the Brits' hypocrisy and double standards regarding Israel could fill volumes--so I'll end the discussion of it now.

 

     But what's even more astounding and unbelievable is that the legendary 20th century victim of the Brits' machinations--the nation hand delivered to Hitler at Munich by its earlier British "friends"--is now itself demanding that Israel consent to a replay of this in the 21st century.

    
     Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg of the Czech Republic, whose country is the current EU president , has joined the anti-Netanyahu/Lieberman  chorus--knowing full well that the claim that all that Arabs want is Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) has about the same amount of truth in it as Chamberlain's promises did in Munich 1938.

 

   Shame on them all...

 

     Let's hope Netanyahu and Lieberman have what it takes to resist what will likely follow...and, unfortunately, from America's new leader as well.

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

Hey Kristof...You're Late! (Juan Cole versus Daniel Pipes)

                                                                                                                                                                        Hey Kristof...You're Late!

                                                                                                                                                                                 by Gerald A. Honigman

 

     While The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof is no stranger to these positions throughout the year, he frequently comes out with his gems of Middle East wisdom right around Bike Week here in Daytona Beach, Florida, when tens of thousands of Harley enthusiasts arrive to also spread their hot air exhaust around town. This year Nick was a few weeks late.

     Like others of his ilk--Thomas Friedman (better of late), David Ignatius, Richard Cohen, just to name a few, who are also obsessed with creating  a 22nd Arab state (second, not first, Arab one within the original April 25, 1920 borders of the Mandate of Palestine before the Brits gave some 80% away to Arab nationalism creating Transjordan in 1922)--Kristof loves to lecture Israel, practically invisible on a map of the world, about the need to bare the necks of its kids so that Arabs, who conquered over six million square miles of territory from mostly non-Arab peoples  in the name of their nation, can have that additional state as well.

     Kristof's latest jewel published in the Daytona Beach News-Journal on March 20, 2009, "Like Minds Cluster When Grazing From The Daily Me," compared academics Juan Cole and Daniel Pipes as sources of information regarding the Middle East.

     Kristof prefers Juan Cole...shocking (not)!

      I have never met Cole, but I had--unfortunately--studied under a number of his academic clones in my own graduate school days.

      While also--but a bit more subtly than President Obama's dear friend, Rashid Khalidi, Juan Cole, et al--promoting the themes of nasty Zionists and the need to create Arab state # 22, Carter Findley never mentioned the plight of some thirty-five million Kurds who remain stateless to date. They had been gassed and slaughtered by Arabs repeatedly and had their one best chance at statehood aborted by a collusion of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism after World War I. Indeed, the only time Findley ever mentioned Kurds in his doctoral seminar was when he mocked their plight in Turkey.
 
     In Juan Cole's Informed Comment blog of February 11, 2009, he proclaimed Israel's new incoming government as being prone to racism, apartheid, and so forth. Nothing new...his positions from the get-go. That has been how one gets ahead in Middle Eastern Studies for quite some time now. Israel is routinely placed under the high power lens of moral scrutiny, while a blind eye is turned to literally millions of victims of Arab massacres, gassings, genocide, enslavement, dhimmitude, subjugation, and so forth. And woe unto the student who dares to question such duplicity. Been there, done that...unfortunately.

     Turn the clock back several decades again as we return to Findley's doctoral seminars.
 
     I'll never forget one Greek Orthodox woman who I'm sure has a great position at some university today...can't think of her name, but remember her well. Unlike myself, she wasn't denied a Ph. D. dissertation advisor to finish her doctoral work. Geez...I wonder why?
 
     Her idol was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent World War II in Berlin at Hitler's side and organized a division of Muslim Nazis, 'the Hanzar.' He also played a first-hand role in instigating the genocide of Europe's Jews, Serbs and Gypsies.

      When she presented her research on the Mufti at our seminar, all the above was either white-washed or ignored altogether. Findley, of course--her mentor and featured guest at her wedding--sat through it all approvingly.
 
     Now, contrast this with my own research about Ze'ev Vladimir Jabotinsky…the man most responsible in the early Mandate era for Jewish defense against Arab slaughter. Findley had no problem emphasizing his alleged "fascist connections" and so forth.

     Unlike too many of his pipe-dreaming Zionist opponents on the Left, Jabotinsky was not delusional about what the Arabs' true intentions were regarding the resurrection of the Jew of the Nations--regardless of its size. A reading of his Appetite Versus Starvation speech in the early 20th century reveals a man truly concerned about justice for Arab and Jew alike. If the so-called Arab World had produced such "fascists," the Arab-Israeli conflict would have been resolved long ago. But none of this makes a difference to the Juan Coles...Kristof's sources of enlightenment.

     Jabotinsky's heirs are now set to take office in Israel. I hope they do justice to his memory.

     So, the Rashid Khalidis, Juan Coles, Nicholas Kristofs, and so forth now bemoan the end of the so-called peace (of the grave) process because at least most Israeli Jews have finally woken up to the reality that the end game for both the West's alleged Fatah good cops of Abbas and the bad cops of Hamas is the same regarding Israel. The façade of a difference is largely about who will gain access to the billions of dollars in foreign aid that is and will be pouring in. Arafat's stashed $$$ millions or more are legendary. Hamas is simply more honest.

     Daniel Pipes has long approached the Middle East with a far more realistic and objective appraisal of the facts at hand. He has been virtually prophetic regarding such things as 9/11, militant Islam, and so forth.

     On the other hand, the Juan Coles of the Ivory Tower have blamed solely Israel and America as the culprits.

     The fact that the vast majority of conflicts today, for example, involves militant Islam and/or real Arab racism is of no concern to them.

     What does the fight in the Philippines have to do with Israel?...Thailand?... Kashmir?...the Balkans?

     What do the murder and subjugation of Egyptian Copts, North African Berbers, Assyrians, those Kurds mentioned above, or Arab genocide in black Africa's Sudan have to do with Israel?

     The truth is that Israel--one half of whose Jews who are from refugee families from the "Arab World" where they were known as killers of prophets and kilab yahud, Jew dogs--is on the front lines of the age-old war the Arabs and Arabized have continuously waged for over thirteen centuries now, the conflct of the Dar ul-Islam versus the Dar al-Harb.

     Here's a few examples of the real problem, the one largely Arab petro-dollar sponsored, Arab, and hypocritical Lefty professors like Cole won't touch with a ten-foot pole...

     The Sudan's ex-president, Gaafar Muhammad al-Nimeiry, stated during the earlier slaughter of nearly a million blacks (over a million more since):

     The Sudan is the basis of the Arab thrust into... black Africa, the Arab civilizing mission ("Arabism and Pan-Arabism in Sudanese Politics," Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 11, no. 2, 1973, pp. 177-78).

     While Kristof's Juan Cole mentors are passionate about such things as Rudyard Kipling's late 19th-century poem, "The White Man's Burden," supposedly typifying continued Western colonialist and imperialist attitudes towards the Third World, why are such Arab racist attitudes and mindset ignored?

     Is it that the Arab Man's Burden is kosher but the White Man's isn't ? Recall, again, Cole's recent blog worries about alleged Israeli "racism."

     Consider also this quote from the Syrian Arab Constitution...something, I'm sure, Juan Cole's students never heard a peep about...

     The Arab fatherland belongs to the Arabs. They alone have the right to direct its destinies.... The Arab fatherland is that part of the globe inhabited by the Arab nation that stretches from the Taurus Mountains, the Pacht-i-Kouh Mountains, the Gulf of Basra, the Arab Ocean, the Ethiopian Mountains, the Sahara, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea.

     Can't tell for sure--are any Eskimos included in this Arab plan of conquest?

     The Juan Cole-type "scholarly" reaction: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil...After all, these are Arabs we're talking about--not Jews. And besides, it's all just made up fascist Zionist propaganda anyway...

     As I like to remind folks and as exemplified above, Arabs have habitually referred to most of the region as purely Arab patrimony--the Arab-Israeli, Arab-Kurd, Arab-black African, Arab-Berber, and other such conflicts in a nutshell.

     So, summing it up, here's a rule of thumb for those truly interested in a realistic and objective analysis of what's really going on over there...

     When it comes to sources such as Juan Cole or Daniel Pipes, whatever Kristof tells you, choose the opposite.

    

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