Taqqiyah—You've Heard About The Newest Arab "Peace" Plan?

Taqqiyah…Or, What’s Implicit About Implicit

by Gerald A. Honigman



So, did you hear the “good news?”

With Israel poised to invade Gaza to strike out against those who have deliberately launched dozens of rockets and mortars against civilians in Israel proper since the latter withdrew from Gaza, Hamas and Abbas’s Arafatians have come to an agreement.

The good cop/bad cop halves of the same Arab coin now allegedly will call for a halt to attacks against Jews within Israel’s 1949, U.N.-imposed, 9-mile wide armistice line existence if the Jews agree to give away the store.

The media is reporting the story as an implicit recognition of the Jewish State. And the Arabs are laughing their butts off.

For many Muslims, obfuscation--deliberate deceit--is kosher as long as it’s done to promote the cause. It has a name, taqqiyah, and it is especially proper in times of a threat.

For both Hamas and Abbas’ Fatah, that cause--whether framed in Dar ul-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb religious or political language--has no room for a Jewish Israel…regardless of size.

There is no difference between the charters of the P.L.O. or Hamas when it comes to this subject--despite lies to the contrary. And those lies are another example of taqiyyah…in this case telling the West what it wants to hear as opposed to reality.

With Israeli tanks on their doorstep in the wake of the kidnapping of a young soldier stationed at his base in Israel proper (with subsequent news of another possible kidnapping as well) and the killing and wounding of others, it’s show time once again…

Tell an all-too-gullible West what it wants to hear…even if you’re not telling them that at all.

So, if Israel agrees to a total retreat to its former microscopic, rump state status, and accepts being inundated by millions of alleged Arab refugees sworn to its destruction, then the good cop/bad cop team might agree to another of their so-called hudnas…temporary ceasefires.

As many have noted, Arafat’s vision of this was the Peace of the Quraysh. The Muslim Prophet, Muhammad, made a temporary truce with this pagan tribe until he gained the strength to defeat them. The late Egyptian ghoul’s vision is identical to that of the current good cop/bad cop team.

It gets tiring having to repeat all of this stuff. But the media and others--including the U.S. State Department--act in ways that makes this repetition necessary.

The most moderate of so-called Palestinian Arab moderates, the late Faisal al-Husseini, called any dealings with the Jews merely a Trojan Horse.

Taqqiyah…

And he explained that the real plan was for an Arab Palestine from the River to the Sea.

Check out both the Arafatians’ and Hamas’ websites, maps, literature, and so forth if you have any doubts about the alleged new Arab plan as well.

After the Six Day War in 1967, Arabs were forced to abandon the one fell swoop idea for Israel’s demise for a destruction in stages strategy instead. The old/new plan now making “news” calls to first get Israel back to its indefensible, ‘49 Auschwitz/armistice lines, and then--as Muhammad did with the Quraysh---finish it off at the proper time.

Recall that Mahmoud Abbas, the current sweet-talking, Arafatian alleged good cop, also ran for office based upon policies calling for Israel’s destruction as a Jewish State. He has been simply more willing than Hamas to play the taqqiyah card.

With Israel apparently ready to blast some more of Hamas’s leaders to their awaiting seventy or so virgins in Islamic Paradise, it appears that taqqiyah is sounding a bit better to them as well right now. Hence the media’s reporting of this alleged new joint implicit acceptance of Israel’s right to exist by the Arab good cop/bad cop team.

For such a “deal,” Israel is expected to bare the necks of its kids.

What’s really nauseating is that all of this is well known and is well-documented. So why is it newsworthy when Arabs indulge in such taqqiyah--to save their own derrieres--yet again?

Most nations wouldn’t have waited months to take effective action against neighbors bombarding them on a daily basis. America certainly wouldn’t have. And none should.

Imagine trying to locate the exact car of the exact bomber amid a crowded civilian population. But what’s Israel’s alternative here…to simply allow the rats to escape back into their dens unchallenged? And recall that, in Israel’s particular case, the Palestinian Arab population voted into office a government openly dedicated to its destruction. So the Arab Street is a willing accomplice to the blood lust, rejectionist policies of its leaders...Not exactly an innocent group.

While many in the media and elsewhere claim that there’s moral equivalency at work here, murdered Jews are not killed because their brothers use them as human shields and are caught in the crossfire and such. They are innocents deliberately targeted and blown apart simply because they are Jews living in the sole, resurrected Jewish State. Keep in mind that Arabs have almost two dozen of such states (including one, Jordan, which exists on some 80% of the original 1920 borders of Palestine), most having been conquered and forcibly Arabized from native, non-Arab peoples.

Consider what the Geneva Conventions has to say about this…

Article #51/7:


The presence of the civilian population shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attack.


Think about what Israel has been putting up with from its neighbors.

Article #58b:


The parties to the conflict shall...avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.


The rats’ dens are typically set up in or adjacent to civilian apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, etc., as America has learned for itself in Iraq.

Article #51/2:


The civilian population...shall not be the object of attack. Acts of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited...Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.


Arabs typically target Israeli civilians.

In light of all of the above, there is only one course of action for Israel to take in response to the old, new destruction in phases peace of the grave plan which the media and others claim to be the Arabs’ implicit recognition.

It must treat it the way any other taqqiyah should be dealt with.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Have You Been Following The Genocide By Arabs Against Blacks?

Tales of Darfur and Racist Zionists...

by Gerald A. Honigman

Tucked into an article on page nine of my local Florida paper on June 15th was a classic line...but I doubt if it was noticed or sunk in to most who even got to read it. It was, after all, nowhere near front page or an op-ed, editorial, or such. And it wasn’t the sports section or the comics.

I mean, if Arab civilians in Gaza get killed (due to a war waged by leaders they themselves elected whose goal is to exterminate their Jewish neighbor), then there’s a real story for ya…big pictures, big stories (using only Arab sources), editorials, the whole shebang. That’s the all-too-typical deal if Israel is the alleged bad guy.

But those in that June 15th story were not Arabs allegedly killed by Jews defending themselves (indeed, evidence now shows that the recent Gaza tragedy was directly caused by Arabs themselves), so page nine would do nicely…

While the media has been running more articles about the Sudan of late and Darfur in particular, for whatever reasons, the message just doesn’t seem to sink in to those who, unlike too often in the past, are at least now covering the story.

The article by Nick Wadhams of the Associated Press dealt with the findings of the U.N.-backed court probing war crimes in Darfur.

In about the middle of the article, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, was quoted in his report to the Security Council as stating that eyewitnesses repeatedly told of the perpetrators of the atrocities telling victims such things as, “we will kill all the black…we will drive you out of this land.”

But, try as you may, one would be at a loss in this article to determine who those above perpetrators actually were. No need to ever guess, however, when the articles are about Israel…

The perpetrators, of course, are Arabs who have waged this war in Africa in the name of the Arab nation for over four decades (actually, since the 7th century C.E.). For whatever reasons, too often that little detail is left out when Arabs are involved…and for the same reasons why the average reader doesn’t get to read about Kurdish school children being forced to sing songs today praising their alleged “Arab” identity in Syria, the plight of non-Arab Berbers, Assyrians, Copts, native kilab yahud “Jew dogs,” and so forth throughout the “Arab” world.

Rare was the college or grad student who heard anything about the war in the Sudan in the classroom back in the 1960s when its modern version erupted bigtime. Periodically the public would be tossed reports of Anya-Nya “rebels” who began a renewed revolt against the imposition of Arab rule in the south in 1963...like those now coming from some contemporary columnists today.

For similar reasons, one seldom heard about Kurds or other non-Arab residents of the region as well. The only time, for example, that I heard about Kurds (thirty million of them and, unlike Arabs, truly stateless) from the tenured chief honcho at Ohio State while doing doctoral studies in the ‘70s was when he made a mockery out of their own national aspirations while describing his travels throughout Turkey. But “Palestine” and the “plight of the Palestinians” never left center stage. And Hitler’s ally, the Mufti, was his hero.

Both then and now, too often it is Israel, alone, which is constantly put under the high power lens of scrutiny despite the fact that--unlike how Arabs have treated their own perceived and more numerous nationalist competitors--the Jews indeed made repeated and honorable attempts at compromise with them.

Think about numerous blacks in Africa alone--not only in the Sudan--who suffered quite a different fate at the hands of Arabs whose idea of “compromise” involves total subjugation to their own cause. Millions of these people have been massacred, maimed, enslaved, turned into refugees, and so forth in the name of the Arab nation. Now ask yourself about how many times Arabs have been taken to task by the international community--the media, academia, the U.N., and so forth, always so quick to accuse Israel for any and all alleged sins--for such things.

In contrast to this Arab version of “compromise” (and as must be repeated over and over again whether some like it or not as just one of numerous examples), purely Arab Jordan sits today on over three fourths of the land of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate of Palestine. And later there were repeated attempts to create that 2nd state for Arabs in Palestine on the quarter or less of the land remaining after 1922’s creation of Transjordan. These were rejected by the Arabs themselves. Arafat did it again just a few years ago. So much for the Arab claim that the Jews got all of the land. Did Arabs ever offer any such thing to their own nationalist rivals?

But there’s no mystery here…

Again, quite simply, in Arab eyes, no one but themselves could be rulers and/or perceived as equals in their neck of the woods--not “their” Jew dogs, gassed Kurds, enslaved and massacred black Africans in the June 15th article, and so forth.

A few years ago, David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote on September 16, 2003 of the danger in playing America’s Turkish card in Iraq. When referring to Kurds, he managed to label them only as terrorists or rebels.

At a time when most media folks still debate whether or not Arabs--who deliberately blow up busloads of Jewish innocents in buses, pizza parlors, teen nightclubs, and such--are “militants” or “terrorists,” folks like Mr. Ignatius have no problem using the “T” word for Kurds.

And Ignatius’ comments have often been echoed elsewhere, such as in Thomas Friedman’s March 26, 2003 op-ed in the New York Times. Friedman advised that the Kurds should be told point blank, “what part of ‘no’ don’t you understand? ...You Kurds are not breaking away.”

Keep in mind that these are the same folks who, day after day, write volumes espousing the creation of the Arab’s 22nd state and second, not first, Arab one in “Palestine.” But I’ve yet to see the paper or hear the commentary endorsing similar rights for blacks in the Sudan, calling for a roadmap for Kurdistan, and so forth. 

While, at long last, more coverage is being given to the carnage in the Sudan, those who should know better still act deaf, dumb, and blind.

Imagine if these were Jews committing these atrocities?

We don’t have to imagine.

Think of the Muhammad al-Dura affair, the alleged Jenin massacre, etc. and so forth. Front page news, editorials, and op-eds for months…And it turned out--as usual--that the Arabs lied through their teeth about all of this, and an all-too-gullible West was all-too-willing to simply accept the Arab version of any given story over and over again…

Why?

Is it that after victimizing Jews for millennia, Gentiles need to convince themselves that Jews are indeed as bad as themselves?

As just the latest example of this mess and the West’s collaboration in demonizing the Jew of the Nations, while Arabs hastened to hide and cart off evidence from that recent Gaza beach tragedy (where Israeli artillery responding to daily Arab rocket fire allegedly killed Arab civilians), it turned out that Arabs lied again. Surviving evidence points to Arabs mining the beach to prevent Israeli commandos from launching another attack which took out Arab rocket crews a bit earlier. Hundreds of mortars and rockets have been deliberately launched against Israeli civilians over the past months during their alleged “cease fire.” It appears that Arab picnickers most likely encountered one of their brothers’ own mines.

So, again, what’s up with all of this?

I think I know but will be accused of being a paranoid Jew if I say it.

So, back to the Sudan…

Back in early March 2006, I came across Nicholas Kristof’ New York Times’ op-ed dealing with the Darfur genocide. And, unlike the June 15th article mentioned above, he actually did manage to mention the word Arab (once) as well. Indeed, compared to most of his colleagues, Kristof has shown a bit more responsibility in portraying the broader perspective regarding the struggle for political rights in the region. Some of his latest reports were even live from the Sudan.

Despite this, Kristof still doesn’t get it...And if he doesn’t, the others of his ilk certainly don’t.

Is it a genetic defect common to ultra-left reporters which dictates their seeing the entire region only through Arab lenses? A current or future payoff from Arabs (others, for example, habitually move through the revolving door of politics and big business tied to Arab megabucks…including Presidents, Secretaries of State, and so forth)?

Or, is it that “Jew thing” yet again?

Given the policy of the liberal media (and I’m a registered Democrat who drives a hybrid Toyota Prius) to treat all others in the region besides Arabs as mere interlopers or rebels, their audiences remain largely ignorant of the numerous atrocities committed against any and all who don’t accept subjugation and forced Arabization as their fate.

And even all, like Kristof, who finally write exposés about Arab actions--and even use the word Arab from time to time in doing so--still cannot get themselves to make the next essential leap...that others, besides Arabs, are also entitled to what Arabs demand exclusively for themselves.

While I share with this crew the concern about the earlier effects of imperialism and colonialism Western style in the region, the ultra left media has too willingly turned a blind eye to the tens of millions of non-Arab peoples and/or lands which have been conquered, settled, massacred, enslaved, turned into refugees, and colonized by the Arabs’ own centuries’ old and continuing imperialist policies (the Dar ul-Islam vs. the Dar al-Harb mindset, and so forth), creating new victims--black Africans, Kurds, pre-Arab conquest but Semitic Lebanese, Copts, Jews, Berbers, and so forth--as this piece is being written. Recall that half of Israel’s Jewish population were refugees from the “Arab” /Muslim world.

In case there are any doubts as to what the Arab game plan is for the African part of what Arabs like to call “purely Arab patrimony"--again, lands forcibly conquered and Arabized from largely non-Arab peoples--please pay close attention below.

The Third World likes to chastise the West for its condescending attitudes. Again, I agree with much of that criticism. Rudyard Kipling’s poem, The White Man’s Burden, and all that stuff...

But while the liberal media is quick to agree, why is it mum about such things as President Nimeiry’s statements during the slaughter of over a half million blacks in the Sudan in the 1960s and 1970s (and several times more ever since) that...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, #2, 1973, pp. 177-78)?

Is it that the Arab Man’s Burden is acceptable, but the White Man’s Burden’s isn’t?

Or why, over the decades (and numerous Kurdish, Assyrian, Jewish, Copt, Berber and other victims), no response to this all-too-typical Arab approach as expressed in the Syrian Arab Constitution of the Ba’th?:

“...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 which 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.”

As I’ve noted before, I still can’t tell for sure. Perhaps someone can help...

Are there any Eskimos also included in that above Arab vision?

Probably not…but think about Mindanao in the Philippines. Or much of Europe if it doesn’t watch out. France had its own little intifada not long ago.

Keep in mind that these are the same folks who like to condemn alleged expansionist, racist Zionists who dare to assert that Jews deserve a state more than nine miles wide. Those same Jews who have made Arabic the second official language of their state and who have Arab representatives in the Knesset who regularly side with Hamas (which rejects the existence of a state for Jews for the same reason one for Kurds or black African Sudanese and so forth is rejected) against the country in the region which has the freest Arabs…Israel.

The June 15th AP article ended by stating that Sudan’s national courts have shown little desire to investigate crimes against humanity in Darfur. Sadly, no surprise here…

But consider also the travesty of justice committed for decades by those in the West and elsewhere--the alleged moral watchdogs in academia, the media, and so forth--who too often turn a blind eye to the happenings above and don’t demand more...unless it involves Israel. The latter was brought to the International Court of Justice in Geneva for building a fence designed to keep Arabs from deliberately targeting and blowing apart its children.

How many editorials, news reports, op-eds, articles, political cartoons, pictures, and so forth have been devoted by the “liberal” media to the cause of the Arabs’ 22nd state…that additional one in “Palestine” which Arabs demand take the place of the Jewish one, not live in peace beside it?

Now ask yourselves when the last time was that you heard something similar being demanded for any of the Arabs’ numerous victims mentioned above…

My Jewish “paranoia” again?

I think not.

Racist Zionists?

Yea, right…

Don’t think so.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Hey...Have You Heard The Arabs' Peace (of the grave) Plan?

None…Zilch…Nada

by Gerald A. Honigman

Let me start by first issuing an apology to those readers who are versed in much of what comes next.

The problem is that the other side keeps on resurrecting the same old arguments, and newcomers to the issues--or even oldtimers who pretend otherwise--thus have to be handed my same responses. A lie left unanswered often does eventually become accepted as truth.

So, here we go…

The latest hot story coming out of the power struggle (largely for control of the millions of dollars in foreign aid at stake…Arafat became a millionaire many times over this way) between the good cop and bad cop halves of the sweet talking Arafatian and more honest Hamasnik same coin is that the West’s darling, Mahmoud Abbas, is pressuring the democratically-elected Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Arabs to accept a plan forged by jailed murderers of Jews and wannabes to create the Arabs’ 22nd state and second one in “Palestine“ (Jordan was created from almost 80% of the original 1920 territory) in the West Bank and Gaza. (And talk about a run-on sentence!)

Abbas says to an all-too-believing and gullible West that he wants this state to be set up “just” on every inch of territory in Judea and Samaria (known by those names far longer than the “West Bank” ), not allowing for any modification to Israel’s 1949, U.N.-imposed armistice lines…lines which made the sole, miniscule Jewish State a mere 9-miles wide in spots, and roughly only double that width in its strategic waist, where most of its population and industry are located. Of course the West doesn’t get to hear what Abbas then tells his own folks in Arabic.

It’s useful to recall how those Auschwitz lines Abbas refers to came to be.

Having rejected the 1947 partition plan for the remaining 20% of the Mandate left after Arabs already received the bulk of “Palestine” in 1922 with the creation of Transjordan, a half dozen Arab states--armed to the teeth with weapons left over by the Allies in World War II and even led, in Transjordan, by British officers--then attacked a reborn Israel in 1948. This attack and rejection of the partition (at the same time that a predominantly Hindu India and a Muslim Pakistan were being created for similar reasons) created a problem that the whole world has become quite familiar with…that of Arab refugees.

As part of this new jail-created “peace (of the grave) plan,” Abbas also expects Israel to grant the right of return to said Arab refugees…whether it’s accepted by them or not. Keep in mind that these folks have been raised since birth on Jew-hatred and jihadist ideologies.

Also keep in mind that Abbas--the moderate--openly ran on a platform promising Israel’s total destruction as a Jewish state--but by “more acceptable” means. Babies and mothers getting blown apart in pizzerias hurt the Arab cause, as do students disemboweled on exploding buses.

So…force the Jews to be swamped by “returning” Arabs with one of the highest birth rates in the world. Abbas swears he will not back down from this demand...despite attempts by his supporters among the Foggy Folks and elsewhere to paint a more rosy picture about this.

Arafat loved to say that the Arab mother was his best weapon. His buddy, Abbas, agrees.

Now, about those Arab refugees…

When the United Nations Relief Works Agency--UNRWA--was set up to assist Arab refugees created as a result of the Arab attempt on Israel’s life which backfired, the very word refugee had to be redefined to assist those people.

So many Arabs were recent arrivals into the Palestine Mandate themselves that UNRWA had to adjust the very definition of “refugee” from its prior meaning of persons normally and traditionally resident to those who lived in the Mandate for a minimum of only two years prior to 1948...Please read that last line again.

Recall that there were hundreds of millions of people who became refugees all over the world during the last few violent centuries. And, even more to the point, for every Arab who was forced to flee the fighting that Arabs started (after all, how dare Jews want in one tiny, resurrected state what Arabs demand for themselves in some two dozen others), a Jewish refugee was forced to flee “Arab”/Muslim lands into Israel and elsewhere...but with no UNRWA set up to assist them.

As for those “native Palestinians” Abbas plans to inundate Israel with, Arafat himself was born in Cairo, Egypt.

Scores of thousands of other Arabs came from Egypt earlier in the latter 19th century with Muhammad Ali and son’s Ibrahim Pasha’s armies and, like Arafat a bit later, many settled in “Palestine.” Please refer to this url in Pakistan Today for the derivation of this name http://www.paktoday.com/honig16.htm

During the mandatory period after World War I, the Records of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission recorded additional scores of thousands of Egyptian, Syrian, and other Arabs entering into Palestine and settling there.

Want some more “native Palestinians?”

Hamas’ patron saint, Sheikh Izzedin al-Qassam, for whom its militant wing (those who blow up the teen clubs, buses, and such) and rockets are named, was from Latakia, Syria. Like many if not most others, the Sheikh was an Arab settler in Palestine.

Mind you that this is the same Hamas that butchers Jewish “settler” babes and grandmas. And the same Hamas that says no Israel--regardless of size--has a right to exist. In this, however, as those with active neurons have already figured out, its vision is simply a more honest version of that of Abbas’ Arafatians themselves.

It is estimated that for each one of these incoming Arab settlers who were recorded, many others crossed the border under cover of darkness to enter into one of the few areas in the region where any economic development was going on because of the influx of Jewish capital. These folks later became known as “native Palestinians.” Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from some of those same “Arab” countries--Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen, and so forth--became labeled the settlers.

While this is not to say that there were not native Arabs also living in Palestine, it is to say that many, if not most, of the Arabs were also relative newcomers themselves. Given the Dar ul-Islam world outlook of Arabs, however, it was simply considered legitimate for them to conquer, colonize, and settle any and all of such lands.

So, many of the villages set up in the “West Bank” and elsewhere were settlements established by Arab settlers. Read that last sentence again also…

There were Jews whose families never left Israel/Judaea/Palestine over the centuries, despite the tragedies of two, well-documented major wars for their freedom and independence with Rome, forced conversions of the Byzantines, the Diaspora, Crusades, and other nightmares.

So, why is it supposedly now acceptable for Arabs from surrounding lands to settle in Palestine, but not for Israel’s Jews, half of whom were refugees themselves from Arab/Muslim lands…the other side of the refugee coin nobody talks about.

Jews owned land and lived in Judea (Judean=Jew) and Samaria until they were massacred by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s. And that brings me back to the issue of the ‘49 Auschwitz/armistice lines…

After Colonial Secretary Churchill’s creation of the Emirate of Transjordan in 1922 from the lion’s share of the original 1920 Palestine Mandate, experts such as former Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow have long pointed out that the “West Bank” was non-apportioned territory--much of which was State land--belonging to no individuals and open to settlement by all residents--Jews, Arabs, etc.--of the Mandate.

Despite Abbas’ fantasies, Arabs certainly did not exclusively own this land, and when Transjordan grabbed it in the 1948 fighting, it was an illegal occupier (indeed, at the time, only two states recognized its land grab). Keep all of this in mind when you hear Abbas proclaim that Israel must withdraw from every inch of “Arab” land.

As a result of that 1948 land grab, “Trans“ (across ) was dropped from the name of the Arab state which thus came to exist on both banks of the Jordan River (80% of “Palestine”), and Jordan saw to it that Jews were ousted from these lands. At the same time, more Arabs poured in.

In 1967, despite the pleas of Israeli leaders given to him via diplomatic channels, King Hussein of Jordan listened to President Nasser of Egypt and joined what he thought would be the final destruction of Israel.

Nasser had already blockaded Israel at the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli big time), sent the U.N peace-keeping force away, and amassed over 100,00 troops, planes, tanks, and such right up to Israel’s armistice line. By the way, since the days of the Pharaohs, Egypt had used Gaza--which Israel has already withdrawn from--as one of its main invasion routes to attack Jews in Israel. Some things change, some things don’t...

Anyway, that’s how Jordan lost that which it gained illegally in the ‘48 fighting.

Which brings us, again, back to the ‘49 armistice lines…

After the fighting was over in those six days in ‘67, much debate took place over the fate of the non-apportioned territories of the Mandate.

Funny, in most other wars, when an aggressor attacked a neighbor repeatedly from territory, he frequently wound up losing said territory for good if he lost the war. And territory was often grabbed by others--including the United States--even if it wasn’t attacked. National security interests and such…

But, this is the Jew of the Nations we’re talking about…So I guess it was expected to teach Christians how to be better Christians by simply turning its Jewish cheek over and over and over again to its enemies.

While Arabs and their supporters tried hard to get the precise wording that they wanted, sanity won the day when the final draft of U N Security Council Resolution 242 got passed ( Rostow was one of its architects) in the months after the Six Day War.

Israel was not expected to withdraw to the Auschwitz lines yet again, and the travesty of justice which occurred in 1949 was to be undone. Recall, as would become the pattern, the U N. did nothing to stop the Arabs’ aggression in 1948 and got involved only when the Jews turned the tide. When it finally acted, the U N sought to limit Arab losses, not to stop initial Arab aggression.

As has been written often over the years, the words the and all were deliberately left out of the wording referring to withdrawal from territories, and any such withdrawal was to be made to secure and recognized borders in the context of real peace treaties, not “let’s fool the Jews” hudnas.

To those who want to discuss these issues but have never looked at a map of the world or the Middle East in this context, you must now do so or refrain from comment. I dare you, on the former, to find Israel without a magnifying glass…and you’ll find it just a bit easier on the latter.

The point is that Israel--half of whose Jews were refugees from the “Arab” world--takes up less than one half of one per cent of the territory in its neck of the woods.

The issue has never been about Israel’s size, but that others--be they Kurds, Copts, Berbers, black African Sudanese, Assyrians, Jews, and so forth--are also deserving of their own slice of justice in what Arabs simply call purely Arab patrimony. This, indeed, sums up the Arab-Israel dilemma in a nutshell.

So, that brings us to the proper response to Abbas and his non-peace plan.

Abbas’ Arafatians have long held to a destruction in phases plan for Israel.

After the Arab defeat in ‘67, they shifted to a policy which would get Israel back to its indefensible ‘49 armistice lines, and then--after a period of their own arms build up and such--would do what the Prophet Muhammad did to the Quraysh after the hudna--ceasefire--he granted them…move in for the final kill.

Israel must insist--despite the feathers it will ruffle abroad--on justice for itself. It is entitled to thrive, not just barely survive.

If it does not insist on a rectification of the travesty imposed upon it in 1949, Israel will remain forever dependent on the good will of others (who may withhold that good will at will) to “save” it in times of crisis. Israel had such promises before which never materialized when they were needed.

Any 22nd state for Arabs must not come at the expense of the sole state Jews possess.

If there is to be a rump state in an area which really has no room for another state, it must be that additional one created for Arabs in Palestine (their 2nd, not first) that much of the rest of the world insists upon… not Israel.

Given all of this, there is therefore only one response that Israel must give to Abbas--whether or not Hamas plays along with the prisoners’ “peace” plan.

When it comes to the crucial issues of a return to the Auschwitz lines and Arab inundation of Israel by jihadist alleged refugees, Israel must state loudly and clearly…

None…zilch…nada.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

So, Are you Following The Illegal Alien Debate?

(Don’t) Meet Me In Saint Louis
by Gerald A. Honigman

No...not that Saint Louis.

I’ve tried to keep out of the discussion regarding America’s policies towards millions of illegal aliens who now call the United States their home. I’m an educator, and I have this gut feeling that not a few of my students over the decades have come from such families. It is indeed a tough topic for me to deal with.

So, rather than tackle the subject head on, I’ve opted for a more cowardly approach...not my usual style. But my hope is that the following account will stimulate further discussion at what the costs of keeping things as they now are really are.

Mine is an unfortunately all-too-true story, one which most folks have never heard, and one which probably isn’t included in 99.999% of the history books used in schools. It’s the tragic saga of a German ocean liner and America’s less than honorable dealings with it. And it involves folks trying desperately to get into America.

After Kristallnacht the preceding year, by 1939 the handwriting on the wall was becoming apparent to even ostriches.

Jews who remained in Germany were having a harder time getting out because emigration policies had become stricter. Many countries (the United States in particular) had immigration quotas, and timely visas were almost impossible to acquire. So, the opportunity that the S.S. Saint Louis presented seemed like the last hope.

In the summer of 1939, 950 prominent German Jews--people whose families had contributed greatly to the Fatherland--thus fled for their lives out of Hamburg aboard the SS Saint Louis seeking asylum. More Jews fleeing Iran’s Ahmadinejad’s non-Holocaust...

The ship’s officers pleaded with America to allow their human cargo to land.

Roosevelt’s successor, President Truman, would later say, “the buck stops here”...but Roosevelt didn’t let the buck stop here. In fact, reports (admittedly disputed) stated that the U.S. Coast Guard was sent out to follow the ship to insure that no German Jews would land on American soil. Sort of like Allied bombers flying over the railroad tracks and crematoria en route for German industry near Auschwitz, but not sparing so much as one bomb for the death camps themselves.

Now, keep in mind that when most Jews hear the name Franklin Delano Roosevelt, they picture him sitting merely one step below the angels. There are, unfortunately, many ways to burst that bubble. For now, however, let’s just stick to the SS Saint Louis.

Whatever Roosevelt’s personal inclinations may or may not have been, he caved in to the blatant anti-Semitism of the day as exemplified by his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, and from Southern Democrats, some of whom threatened to withhold support in the 1940 Presidential election if the Saint Louis was allowed to land. Keep in mind that most Jews still see voting for a Republican in the same light as sleeping with the Devil.

On June 4, 1939 Roosevelt issued an order denying entry to the ship, which was waiting in the Caribbean Sea between Florida and Cuba. Negotiations between the passengers and the Cuban government also later broke down.

The Jews were eventually forced to return to Europe where most--men, women, and children--perished at the hands of the Nazis. Shortly afterwards, agencies of the same American government were saving the lives of Nazi war criminals and bringing them to the Americas.

There is a lesson here for both sides debating the status of illegals in our country today. And again, my own position may only seem like I’m trying to avoid taking one...

While those crossing the border today are looking for jobs, health benefits, brighter futures, and such--understandable desires--most of their lives are not in danger in their own native countries like those of the passengers of the SS Saint Louis. And America does have the right to assure that immigration is done in an orderly fashion...not making fools out of those who are trying to do it the right way.

Having said the above, there is still much that needs to be improved in the process, and those benefiting from cheap, alien labor should be held to account for their share of the problem.

And how do I tell at least probably some of my students that they have no right to want what America has to offer?

Yet I know that America can’t be the world’s savior on all counts.

Saving lives--which, for whatever reasons, America has rejected in the past at times--is, after all, not the same thing as being the guarantor of better lives for the entire rest of the world. The solution lies somewhere in between.

And somewhere in the above tragedy there is probably a lesson to be learned for both sides debating the status of illegals in our country today.

The solution must reflect all that truly makes America great...despite some ghosts like the SS Saint Louis in our closet.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks