'Asabiyah...Have You Hugged Yours Lately?

In light of all the current unilateral concessions the Jew of the Nations continues to make to merely gain acceptance for its survival from a largely hostile world, there is some important advice and wisdom to be heeded originating in the Muslim world itself.

Zionism has come to mean different things to people over the millennia. The one thing that all the various interpretations have had in common, however, involved an eradication of the victimization and statelessness the Jew had witnessed since he took on the Roman conqueror of much of the world for his freedom and lost. Massacres, forced conversions, ghettoization, demonization, dehumanization, inquisitions, and such all carefully paved the road to Auschwitz. The Jew was the alleged deicide people in the Christian West and kilab yahud--"Jew dog"--killers of Prophets in the Muslim East.

Zionism meshed together all of the Jews’ subsequent diverse fears, hopes, and dreams for a better tomorrow. And the key to its future had everything to do with transforming the powerless state of the Jews as a people. Enter ‘Abd-ar-Rahman Abu Zayd ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Khaldun.

Born in the early 14th century C.E., Ibn Khaldun was one of the most important philosophers, jurists, and scholars the Islamic--or any--civilization would ever produce.

Graduate students in Middle Eastern Affairs usually come to know Ibn Khaldun through his work, The Muqaddimah. It is actually the introduction to and Book I of the Kitab al-’Ibar, his History of the World. Besides simply giving an account of events, he offers a rational explanation of the “hows” and “whys” they occurred. Using frequent historical illustrations to make his points, it is here that this great Muslim scholar has some very important things to say about both Jews and Israel.

Indeed, Israel’s current leaders should pay careful attention to the lessons.

Before The Muqaddimah was introduced into this discussion, I had mentioned the tragic state of the Jewish experience and the negative consequences which had derived from this. Ibn Khaldun spoke to this matter as well. Let’s listen:

“Students, slaves, and servants brought up with injustice and tyrannical force are overcome by it…it makes them feel oppressed…induces them to lie, be insincere…their outward behavior differs from what they are thinking. Thus they are taught deceit and trickery…they become dependent on others…their souls become too indolent to acquire…good character qualities. Thus they fall short of their potentialities and do not reach the limit of their humanity. That is what happened to every nation which fell under the yoke of tyranny and learned the meaning of injustice.

One may check this out by observing any person who is not in control of his own affairs and has no authority on his side to guarantee safety. One may look at the Jews (as an example)…The reason is what we have said.”

However one chooses to respond to his assessment, Zionism’s non-religious raison d’etre would have been obvious to Ibn Khaldun, one of the world’s most important thinkers of all times. He devoted much effort to the evolution and development of the Jewish nation, its early struggles with its adversaries, and its later fight for freedom with the mighty Roman Empire and its consequences. He then followed this with an analysis of the Jews’ condition of powerlessness throughout subsequent generations.

Ibn Khaldun would have well understood the rebirth of Israel and the ‘asabiyah--the essential group consciousness emphasized throughout his writings--which made it possible…even if it was a consciousness born not only out of a “noble house” but also from the desperation of the Jews’ perpetual victim, scapegoat, and whipping post status.

While he commented that the Jews, who had one of the most “noble houses” in the world, had subsequently lost their ‘asabiyah and for centuries suffered constant humiliations as a result, he would have applauded and understood their desire to end this unfortunate turn of events.

The Muqaddimah emphasizes that the Jews were forced to wander in the desert for forty years due to their “meekness.” Ibn Khaldun stressed that this was necessary so that a new generation would arise with a new, more powerful ‘asabiyah. Prime Minister Olmert and his supporters should pay close attention to this...Jews can’t afford another of such wanderings.

At a time when Arabs are demanding their 22nd state (most having been created by the conquest of non-Arab peoples and their lands), this great Muslim scholar would have approved and viewed the resurrection of Israel as an answer to the unique plight of stateless Jews…the end of an even more tragic and extensive wandering and period of meekness and powerlessness in the desert.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Beware The Good Ole Days...

Beware The Good Ole Days…

by Gerald A. Honigman

First, some apparent good news…at least for now.

Upon Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s visit to Washington, President George W. Bush stated, before millions watching him on television and listening otherwise, that his letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2004 was still valid.

Note, please, that back then Dubya stated, again at a highly visible press conference, that Israel should not have to return to the 1949, U.N.-imposed armistice lines--and he called them just that, not “borders”-- which turned it into a 9-mile wide rump state, forever at the mercy of those who would destroy it.

And at that same 2004 April Magic conference, the President proclaimed the other essential ingredient to the solution as well...Any Arabs “returning” to Palestine would have to do so in the new territories under Arab control. The Arab dream of overwhelming the Jews in their sole, tiny state would have to go the way of the dinosaurs. Arabs have almost two dozen of their own to date, conquered and forcibly Arabized from mostly non-Arab peoples.

No doubt about it. Any real solution to the Arab-Israeli mess must include the above.

The problem was, no sooner were those essential words spoken, pressures mounted on the President from a variety of quarters--with the Foggy Folks in the lead--to retract them.

By the following year--after Dubya’s reelection--the President was singing a different tune and claiming that any change in Israel’s territorial status had to first get the approval of the Arabs themselves. The latter don’t approve of a 9-mile wide Israel, let alone any thing larger.

Condi led the charge after the reelection to indeed try to force Israel back to the ‘49 lines…something that the final draft of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 expressly did not call for. On the contrary, “secure and recognized borders” were to replace those fragile Auschwitz lines, and any withdrawal was to be done in the context of peace agreements. Think Sinai, Israel, and Egypt...

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, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, previous Secretaries of State, and others held to this position as well. Admittedly, however, the farther we moved in years beyond the Egyptian blockade of Israel (a casus belli) and other hostile acts which led to the ‘67 War, the more amnesia seemed to set in regarding all of this.

Back to the future--now--it was thus, again, good to hear the President recognizing that even in this modern age of warfare, territory still has meaning to the survivability of a state…especially one surrounded by enemies sworn to its death. And in Israel’s case, the conflict has always been over Israel’s very existence, not how big it is.

So much for the relative good news…and it is relative. Condi, for example, wouldn’t even allow Israel to build its fence so that Israel’s main airport, Ben-Gurion, would receive protection from Arabs trying to shoot down civilian planes. And that was when the alleged “good guys” Abbas and his Fatah darlings were still at the helm.

But anyone who believes that the Jewish State should exist and has been following events since the Arab population itself elected Hamas--an organization openly dedicated to Israel’s destruction--has some serious cause for concern. And not because of Hamas’ political triumph.

As I’ve oft written before, the ascendancy of Hamas is, in many ways, a good thing. Honesty is better than lies. So Israel must do what any other nation would do with such a enemy...Obliterate it with no second thoughts and ignore the complaining hypocrites afterwards.

The larger problem, however, is the current tendency to portray Mahmoud Abbas, Ahmed Qurei’, and other Fatah protégés of Arafat as the good guys whom Israel should be missing right now. Indeed, at the recent news conference, both President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert were virtually singing this very tune.

A translation by the highly respected Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) on July 3, 2003 dealt with an interview with Ahmed Qurei’ (Abu Alaa,), who was up until recently the second Abu running the show in the wake of Arafat’s death. Among other things, he was asked about the Arabs’ problem with having the word “Jewish” placed in front of the words “State of Israel” at the summits leading up to the roadmap. Here was his response:

“What is the meaning of a Jewish state? Do we say...Sunni state...Shi’ite state....Christian state? These are definitions that will bring...turmoil.”

Qurei’ and Abbas, sweet-talking Arafatians in suits, both held the same positions regarding a Jewish State. Fatah’s Charter is no different than Hamas’ when it comes to this subject…regardless of claims to the contrary. The honey-coating is for Western consumption only…to get the latter to squeeze the Jews harder for one-sided concessions. That’s what diplomacy amounts to for Jews.

Abbas earlier openly ran on a platform for Israel’s destruction--but by “more acceptable” means. Fatah’s earlier alleged showcase model moderate, Faisal al-Husseini, called for the creation of “Palestine” from the River to the Sea.

The “moderates” repeatedly call any dealings with the Jews via “diplomacy” merely a “Trojan Horse.” Hopefully this needs no further explanation to my readers…

The most that has been offered--despite others, like the Foggy Folks and even our President, putting words into their mouths--is a hudna…a temporary ceasefire like that which the Prophet Muhammad allowed his enemies until he gained the strength to deal them the final blow. Hamas’ leader in Syria recently offered this same “gift” in return for Israel caving in to all of his demands. More on that later...

Recently, Abbas allegedly confronted Hamas with the idea of accepting a state based on Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-‘67 armistice lines, which he called “borders.”

Keep in mind that Arabs have always said--especially Abbas’ folks--that they would follow a destruction in stages scenario. First, get Israel back to its indefensible, 1949 armistice lines, and then--as in the words, again, of Faisal al-Husseini and many others as well--at the proper moment, finish it off. Keep in mind that when Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein of Jordan in 1970, Syrian tanks poured across the border to assist him. Given the right set of circumstances, this same scenario could unfold against Israel as well...and with Arab states also joining the ranks, armed to the teeth with top of the line American weaponry and such.

A mere look at Abbas’ and Fatah’s website, maps, textbooks and such tells the whole story. “Palestine” takes the place of Israel…doesn’t exist side by side of it.

From the kindergarten to the play camps to the radio and television stations to the sermons in the mosques and so forth, there has been no attempt by Abbas and his so-called “moderates” to condition their fellow Arabs to the thought that any, besides themselves, are deserving of justice in the region…no matter how tiny that sliver is.

Keep in mind how areas Israel has already withdrawn from are currently being used…as launching pads for mortar, rocket, and suicide attacks against herself. And this was so when Abbas was also still solely in charge, let alone his predecessor, the late Egyptian ghoul (aka Arafat).

And after each suicide bombing, Abbas “condemned” it as hurting the Arab cause…not because it was wrong to blow innocent people--often school kids--apart.

Enough of reiterating the past.

Here’s what needs to be done now…

Israel must insist on drawing its own borders, using 242 as the guidelines. Arabs are still dreaming of the destruction in stages manure, and too many elsewhere support them on this. So Israel has no other choice but to act unilaterally. So it must. And it must do so to thrive, not merely survive. Any 22nd state created for Arabs (and second, not first, Arab one in “Palestine") must not come at the expense of the one for Jews.

Israel’s final borders must reflect a fair territorial compromise--one which will give Israel some semblance of strategic depth (keep President Johnson and Reagan’s above comments in mind), yet one which will not bring the bulk of Judea and Samaria’s (known by those names far longer than they were called the “West Bank”) Arabs--most of whom were newcomers into “Palestine” themselves--under Israel’s control. Keeping in mind that purely Arab Jordan sits on some 80% of the original 1920 Palestinian Mandate’s territory, Arabs will still wind up with more than a fair deal here…far more than anything that Arabs themselves have ever offered to any of their own national competitors, be they Kurds, Copts, Assyrians, black Africans, Jews, Berbers, and so forth.

As Israel took in more Jewish refugees fleeing “Arab"/Muslim lands than Arab refugees who were created as a result of the invasion of Israel in 1948 by a half dozen Arab states, Israel should do nothing but laugh at the humor of Arabs--including the “moderates”--insisting that the Jews slit their own throats by accepting any of those raised on jihad into their country. None…Zilch…Nada…in these regards.

Finally, Israel has to stop caving in to those whose policies may change from day to day. Remember Lord Palmerston’s famous quote: “Nations have no permanent friends, just interests.”

Israel must offer Arabs peace for peace, not land for peace. The latter idea has not worked, and Israel has only been perceived as weak as a result. Gaza has been turned into the terror entity all thinking minds knew it would.

When the time comes, Israel must not risk any more of its own 19-year olds going in on the ground.

Gaza must be dealt with the way Britain, America, and others have dealt with their own deadly enemies in years past…It must be flattened from above. Qassams striking Israel proper must be answered by artillery or bombers hitting meaningful and painful targets…not empty fields and buildings. Jewish blood must come at an extremely painful price for those who take--or support those who take--it. Keep in mind that the Arab populace elected Hamas itself.

No further land or other hard concessions should be made until real peace treaties are entered into with Arab partners capable of living up to them. Not one without the other…as has been the case up until now.

And finally, the Jew of the Nations must tell the Arabs to stick their proposed hudnas as far up whatever orifice of their own choosing they select. Such ceasefires only allow Arabs to get one-sided concessions from Jews while strengthening and building themselves up for future and more deadly attacks upon Jewish innocents.

Whether the Arabs have been led by Hamas or Fatah, the past is not the model to hope for…

Beware the good ole days.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Have You Heard About The Iranian Letter To President Bush?

Long Live Arabistan!

by Gerald A. Honigman

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to President George W. Bush this past May 8th in which, among other things, he proclaimed Israel’s alleged original sin and the need to create another state for Arabs in the region.

Well, since he insists, there’s a way to meet at least some of his demands…sort of.

As the lion’s share of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine was handed over to Arab nationalism in 1922 with the creation of what would later be renamed Jordan, a more than just partition of the land favoring the Arabs had already been completed between the two nationalisms competing for it. Indeed, Arabs wound up with some 80% of the total area.

So, the real place where justice for Arabs has not yet been addressed and still remains to be achieved is in…hold onto your seats…Iran itself.

During the 7th century C.E., Arab Caliphal imperialist armies burst out of the Arabian Peninsula and colonized, settled, forcibly Arabized, and spread Islam by a conquering sword in all directions.

Judaea, renamed Palestine (for the Jews’ historic enemies, the Philistines) by conquering Romans after the second revolt of the Jews for their freedom, became occupied by Arabs at this time. And so did Iran

Using southern Iraq as a springboard, southwestern Iran--Khuzestan province in particular--traded back and forth between invading Arab and Iranian rulers.

While it became subsequently linked to Iran despite repeated Arab invasions over the centuries, Khuzestan became so extensively Arabized that, in Safavid times (16th-18th centuries C.E.), the province was commonly known as Arabistan. In modern times, not until Iran’s Reza Shah defeated him in 1924, the Arab Sheikh of Muhammarah ruled much of the area.

Arabs have remembered all of this very well.

Indeed, once again Iraqi-based Arabs--this time under Saddam’s banner--launched the long and bloody Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s that was largely fought over this oil-rich and strategically important area…Khuzestan for Persians, Arabistan for Arabs.

To deal with this problem, Iran has ruthlessly suppressed any manifestations of Arab nationalism by any and all means necessary. By the early 20th century, a proposal had been put forward to even outlaw the Arabic language.

More recently, here’s some excerpts as to how the British Ahwazi Friendship Society reported the situation on July 29, 2005:

The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO) released a statement condemning the recent violent repression of ethnic minorities in Iran following the election of right-wing hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad …Pointing to clashes between security forces and Ahwazi Arabs and Kurds, Nicola Dell’Arciprete, UNPO Assistant General Secretary, said: “The UNPO condemns the Government’s repressive policies against all the Iranian citizens. Iran is a multi-ethnic country in which half of the population belongs to ethnic minorities such as Azeri, Gilaki and Mazandarani, Kurds, Arabs, Lurs, Balochis, Turkmen…

Now recall how Ahmadinejad likes to sit on his high moral horse lecturing Israel about such things. He did so again in his recent letter to President Bush.

“Palestine” underwent partition so, as on the Indian subcontinent (with the creation of Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan) and elsewhere, the political rights of competing nationalisms could at least be addressed. Had Arabs accepted the additional 1947 partition plan, they would have wound up with about 90% of the borders of the original 1920 Palestine Mandate. They rejected the 1947 division of the remaining 20% of the land left after purely Arab Jordan was created from the rest of it in 1922 because, in Arab eyes, there is no justice other than their own.

Jews--like Kurds or Berbers or Assyrians or Copts or black African Sudanese, and so forth--were entitled to nothing in what Arabs like to call their exclusive “purely Arab patrimony.” Note that the vast majority of Arabs were newcomers into the Mandate themselves as the Records of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League Of Nations and other solid documentation testify to.

Ahmadinejad refuses to acknowledge any of this, claims all Israeli Jews were from Europe (tell that to Israel’s Iranian-born President), and the like, yet answers the political aspirations of millions of other non-Iranians living on his own soil only with massacre and repression.

Hypocrisy at its worse…

Turning to the Arabs of Khuzestan / Arabistan in particular, at any hint of unrest, Iran has been quick to act in its own national interests. Arabs have been ethnically cleansed from the area and replaced by others.

As just one of many examples, when Arabs of the Nahda (Renaissance) movement bombed Iranian targets not long ago in Ahwaz and elsewhere, Iran arrested thousands of them and set out to “fix” the problem by any means necessary.

Iranians continuously do likewise to Kurds, Baluchis, and others as well who dare to assert their own political rights. Thousands have been killed as a result over the years in the name of Iranian nationalism.

So, this all begs the question of both the man and the nation he represents...

Why does justice supposedly demand that the sole, microscopic state of the Jews--half of whom were refugees from the “Arab”/Muslim world--consent to national suicide so Arab settlers and colonizers can have their 22nd state and second one in Palestine, but Arabistan should not gain independence from Iran as well?

If a Palestine much smaller than Iran could undergo partition in the name of justice for diverse peoples, then why not Iran? Arabs already got the lion’s share of justice in the partition of the original 1920 borders of Palestine.

So, Ahmadinejad, you’re correct.

It’s indeed time for the Arabs’ 22nd state to be born...

Long live Arabistan!

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks