Qassams and Refugees...The Meanings Of Words

So, What Do Qassam Rockets And Arab Refugees Have In Common?

by Gerald A. Honigman

It was all very predictable.

As soon as fighting broke out at the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian Arab refugee camp in Lebanon between yet another group of Arab jihadists and the Lebanese army a few weeks ago, international pundits and reporters were quick to lay the blame on Israel’s doorstep. Report after report told of the plight of refugees who allegedly exist as such because of the rebirth of Israel.

Much has been written about how the plight of those refugees really came about. Yet the reporters too often act simply as Arab mouthpieces.

No one wants to stay in an area where intense fighting is going on, and when a half dozen Arab states invaded a miniscule, reborn Israel in 1948, some half million Arabs took the repeated advice of their own leaders and fled to make way for what they were told would be conquering Arab armies. After already receiving the lion’s share (over ¾) of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate of Palestine (with the creation of what would later be renamed Jordan) in 1922, Arab nationalism then rejected the ‘47 partition plan which would have divided the roughly 20% of the territory that was still left in half. The Arabs chose war instead.

While no one is squeaky clean once the bullets start flying, and after Israel was attacked, some Arabs found themselves moved out of strategic areas (especially after the Arab blockade of Jerusalem), most indeed left for the previous reasons mentioned. There’s volumes of solid contemporary documentation--including from the Arabs themselves--to support this.

Back to the future…

While the Lebanese are dealing with Arab refugees in the north, Jews are trying to stop Qassam rockets and such from being fired deliberately at civilians into Israel proper from Gaza.

Recall that Israel totally withdrew from Gaza--the historic invasion route since the days of the Pharaohs into Israel proper--a few years back…and got the thank you most of us expected. It just brought the Arabs one step closer to their post-’67 destruction in phases plan for the Jewish State. The same result can be expected if Israel caves in in Judea and Samaria--the “West Bank”--as well. Territorial compromise is an absolute must there, and Israel must insist that the days of its pre-’67, 9-mile wide armistice line, not border, existence are gone forever.

But something worse than irony is also at work here…

When choosing their new weapon of terror and destruction, Hamas (which, like most other Arabs, denies Israel’s right to exist with or without the disputed territories) gave careful thought to the name that it should go by. Since the “militant wing” of the organization (the folks that actually blow up the buses, pizzerias, and such) was named after Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, it made sense to name the new terror weapon after him as well.

Surely such a man must have had some great credentials in the “Palestinian” Arab movement...

Of course.

Izz ad-Din made his name by butchering “Zionist invaders” during the early mandatory period after World War I.

What else do we know about this legendary leader of the “Palestinians?”

Well, for starters, Hamas’ hero--like most other allegedly “native Palestinians"--was born elsewhere. In his case, this killer of Zionist invaders was himself an invader from Ladeqiya--Latakia--Syria.

In just one three month period alone, the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commissions documented scores of thousands of other Syrian Arabs pouring into the British Mandate of Palestine.

Like numerous other Arabs moving in from elsewhere, they came to the Palestine Mandate to take advantage of the economic boom going on because of the influx of Jewish capital. And for every Arab newcomer--i.e. settler--that was documented, many more slipped in under cover of darkness and were never recorded. Add to this the fact that, for a number of reasons, the Brits were more concerned about entering Jews than entering Arabs.

So lots of evidence exists which shows that--like the murderous Sheikh--most “Palestinian” Arabs were no more native than most of the returning, forcibly exiled, Diaspora Jews.

Recall that so many Arabs were recent arrivals into the Mandate that when UNRWA was created to deal with the Arab refugee situation--again, created as a result of the invasion by a half dozen Arab states of a reborn Israel in 1948--it had to adjust the definition of “refugee” from the 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. Keep this in mind regarding current discussions about those refugee camps in Lebanon.

Also consider that for every Arab who was forced to flee the fighting that Arabs started themselves in their attempt to nip a nascent Israel in the bud, a Jewish refugee was forced to flee Arab/Muslim lands...but with no UNRWA set up to help them.

Indeed, scores of thousands of Jews fled the same Syria that Sheikh al-Qassam migrated to Palestine from. Greater New York City alone now has some tens of thousands of these Syrian Jewish refugees. And hundreds of thousands of other Jews fled Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, and so forth.

Now bring this all together…

An Israel not even the size of New Jersey absorbed more Jewish refugees fleeing Arab lands than Arabs moving in the other direction.

Arab states, on the other hand, caged their own refugees in camps and blamed it on the Jews. And it’s the latter’s “fault” for wanting in one tiny, resurrected state what Arabs created almost two dozen of for themselves by conquering mostly non-Arab peoples and their lands on over six million square miles of territory.

Now, in the Lebanese army’s fight against similar “refugees” in those camps, notice also, please, that the world is not demanding pinpoint accuracy as those camps get shelled. Yet consider what typically happens when Israel, trying to locate the exact car and the exact perpetrators, sometimes causes “collateral” damage as a result.

Qassam, refugee…

Words do have meaning, and those who make their livings off of them ought to be the experts regarding such things.

So, wouldn’t it be nice if the media and other powers that be educated themselves first before simply jumping on the blame Israel bandwagon?

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Wiesel & the Petra Conference—Am I Gonna Catch It For This One!

Am I Gonna Catch It For This One!

by Gerald A. Honigman

What the hell.

Here goes anyway…

A friend sent me an article the other day from the May 18th Jewish Daily Forward, “Foxman, Wiesel Upbraid Israel For Pace of Peace Effort.”

Elie Wiesel co-hosted the third annual Petra Conference (“for improving the world”) of Nobel Laureates and others in Jordan. The Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman participated in a panel discussion at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Both men are Holocaust survivors and have made a lucrative career out of Jewish victimization. Indeed, besides Moses in the bulrushes and Jesus on the cross, Wiesel has become the Gentile’s favorite Jewish victim.

Wiesel’s writings have no doubt served an important purpose…and perhaps, in the Eternal Plan, he was spared for this. Both he and Foxman have sired much good in a post-Auschwitz world.

But human both are…

Now please bear with me for a moment.

Oprah Winfrey has been listed as one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World.” On both her April 25, 2005 widely-viewed television show and in her almost three million readers a month June 2005 edition of O Magazine, she showcased alleged Arab victimization at the hands of Israelis. Both were blatantly one-sided depictions of reality.

In case you haven’t heard yet from the Arabs and their assorted derriere kissers, the Jews have become the new Nazis. A favorite theme…victims now victimizers.

That someone as influential as Oprah lends support to this nauseating lie is tragic. But it gets worse…

To shut the Jews up afterwards, she soon dragged out guess who?

The world’s third most famous Jew victim!

On her May 24th and 25th 2006 shows, she strolled arm-in-arm with Wiesel to Auschwitz.

So, the Jews were victimized too. Oprah says so…How ‘bout that!

But Wiesel’s return to Auschwitz did nothing to counter Oprah’s anti-Israel endeavors.

Some things need to be spelled out very clearly.

The differences between what happened to stateless Jews for millennia and what is happening to Arabs in their attempt to create their 22nd state on the ashes of--not along side--the Jews’ sole, resurrected nation were definitely not.

As both Foxman and Wiesel know, time after time Arabs have shown that they seek to replace the Jew of the Nations with a purely Arab one. So-called Arab moderates themselves have repeatedly stated that their “moderation” was/is simply a Trojan Horse. Arafat called it “the Peace of the Quraysh,” the pagan tribe Muhammad temporarily made a hudna with until he felt strong enough to deal the final blow.

The State Department and the West’s darling, Mahmoud Abbas, is Arafat in a suit. He ran on a platform for Israel’s destruction…but by more acceptable means. As I like to point out, blown buses bring bad press. He still holds to this…no matter what Foggy Bottom says. The latter needs an Arab good cop to present along side the Hamas bad cop to shove virtual suicide and/or total dependence upon others’ support down the Jews’ collective throat.

Despite the periodic infighting, the difference between Fatah and Hamas, when it comes to a Jewish Israel, is tactical, not strategic. Any real Arab moderates on this issue go the way of Isam Sartawi…they’re dispatched from this world. Others, like Wiesel’s conference colleague, Yasser Abed Rabbo--whether serious or (probably) not--are temporarily tolerated for the assorted mileage they achieve in Western eyes. For such sweet talk, the Jews are expected to bare the necks of their kids and give away the store.

Withdraw, Jew, from (disputed) territories and the conflict will end. Agree to return to your pre-‘67 nine-mile wide armistice line (not border) existence as a rump state and the Arabs will grant you peace (of the grave).

Like in Gaza…

And I’m Santa Claus.

Keep in mind that Wiesel knowingly played right into all of this.

At the conference, he even made Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert (arguably the Arabs’ best buddy), the brunt of mockery and laughter. The latter deserves this…but not for the reasons Wiesel & Co. charge.

Think about it…

While placing blame for the lack of real progress towards peace on the Jews themselves for not caving in to all that Arabs demand, elsewhere both he and Oprah speak of Darfur and the Sudan and never mention the word Arab. I guess the Martians are responsible…

Again, some things need to be spelled out very clearly.

Had those “oppressive Jews” used Arab techniques against black Africans in the Sudan, against Kurds in Iraq and Syria, and so forth, their Arab headache could have largely been resolved long ago. Millions of black Africans have been killed, maimed, raped, enslaved, murdered, and so forth on behalf of purely Arab patrimony.

Decades ago, President Nimeiry’s stated during the earlier Arab slaughter of blacks in the Sudan in the 1960s and 1970s (and now 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).

Why is it that, for Oprah and far too many others, the Arab Man’s Burden is acceptable, but the White Man’s Burden isn’t?

Back to Wiesel’s virtual anti-Israel pandering and, to a lesser extent, Foxman’s more vague statements about Israel’s “seriousness.”

While there’s always room for improvement, and mistakes are surely made by both sides in any conflict, surely both men--one of whom I know personally, worked with for years, and so forth--understand the real facts of life here.

Given real and even not-so-real peace partners, Israel has repeatedly bent over backwards, forwards, and sideways to reach honorable compromise and accommodation…certainly far more than Arabs have ever done with their own ethno-nationalist competitors. So, indulging in such things as pointing the finger at Israel during a conference like that in Petra (very likely filled with Israel bashers) is nothing short of self-serving and cowardly.

Both Foxman and Wiesel know that the root cause of this conflict has always been an Arab refusal to accept that anyone but themselves be granted political rights in “their” region. Again, scores of millions of Kurds, Copts, Assyrians, black Africans, Berbers, Semitic but non-Arab Lebanese, native and whom the Arabs call kilab yahud--Jew dogs--have been murdered, gassed, subjugated, enslaved, turned into refugees, and so forth for daring to disagree.

The conflict Israel was criticized for at Petra could have been solved long ago had Arabs been willing to grant Jews a mere microscopic slice of the very rights they demand for themselves. And, again, both men know this very well.

So, given such an enemy, it is hard to conceive of what they were thinking when they willingly participated in shifting the spotlight onto Israel.

Will either take up permanent residence in Israel’s Sderot, blasted daily by Arab rockets and adjacent to Arab-controlled and now Judenrein Gaza, or in Israel’s narrow waist (where most of its population and industry are located) after it’s forced to return to its 1949 Auschwitz, er armistice, lines and next agrees to accept millions of allegedly “returning” jihadist Arab refugees?

Sure…

But if the answer to my question just happens--by some small chance--to be in the negative, then perhaps it’s time to put the period of perpetual Jewish victimization behind us…despite what these two famous Holocaust survivors now assert.

Their approach will, no doubt, only perpetuate this further. Maybe afterwards Wiesel can then get the world to weep for yet millions of more dead Jews.

Maybe…

But while this may be good for the Jewish victimization business, it’s not good for Jews.

I’ll demand empathy over sympathy any time…

And Israel better do likewise.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Herod's Tomb, the "West Bank" vs. Judea, etc.

Attention AP And All You Mainstream Media Folks...

by Gerald A. Honigman



I have a favor to ask.


In articles published starting during the week of May 7th, reports dealing with the possible finding of King Herod’s tomb have become news.


The articles speak of the Judean Desert, Judea, the Jews’ revolt for freedom, and so forth.


But, don’t you know that these are all merely Zionist concoctions?


Indeed, you showed that you are aware of this since you identified Herodium, at the beginning of these articles, as being on the West Bank (as you did likewise for Hebron)...not Judea.


You certainly know how to put those Jews in their place! Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter must be proud...


But, to avoid confusion and misleading your readers, please be more consistent in your opposition to those fabricating Jews.


The other correct designations you should have used therefore would be the West Bank (not Judean) Hills, the West Bank (not Judean) Desert, and so forth...


Don’t dare Judaize those places...that’s just what those conniving Zionists want!


And, in the future, please refrain from reporting about the Jewish Temple and Temple Mount in Jerusalem as well. You made this mistake in your recent articles.


As the Arabs will tell you, the Jews never had a Temple there. Mere pipedreams...


Abbas and his latter day Arafatians as well as Islamic Jihad and the Hamasniks will be glad to supply you with its real name, Buraq’s Mount.


It was named for Muhammad’s winged horse, which took him there from the Arabian Peninsula to ascend to Heaven after he learned of the Temple (of Solomon) Mount itself from the Jews, founders of the date palm oasis at Medina.


The Jews, many of whom fled to Arabia after the Roman wars, gave Muhammad refuge in Medina during his Hijra (flight) from Mecca in the 7th century C.E. He would later repay them with slaughter, rape, and enslavement for not accepting his religio-political leadership.


The Prophet says he spoke to the Angel Gabriel to learn of the Temple and other such things.


Nice, but he also spent a long time in Medina with Jewish teachers (and met Christians elsewhere whose religion was an offshoot of that of the Jews) who introduced him to G_d, Abraham, ethical monotheism, etc. in the first place (he even had his followers turn towards Jerusalem for a while to win the Jews’ support), and it is primarily the Book of the Jews which mentions Gabriel and so forth. Certainly nothing of such matters was to be found in sources of Muhammad’s earlier fellow pagan Arabs themselves. 


Gabriel’s chat with Muhammad...the latter’s Jewish tutors...


What a coincidence!


Moving on...


Don’t dare listen to those who will next tell you that the land was known as Judea--land of the Judaeans (Jews)--and Samaria for almost 3,000 years until British imperialism divided the land in the early 20th century after defeating the Turks in World War I (who ruled it for over 4 centuries) into a west bank and an east bank (of the Jordan River). The Brits’ Mandate of Palestine was granted to them on 4/20/1920 and covered both banks.


Those same Hebrew story tellers will next claim that in 1922 British imperialism then rewarded its Hashemite Arab allies from Arabia with the entire east bank--so, right from the getgo, Arab nationalism was granted almost 80% of “Palestine.” The Brits’ East Bank rep back then, Sir Alec Kirkbride, wrote all about this in his book, A Crackle Of Thorns. Later, when Transjordan attacked a nascent Israel in 1948 and seized land on the other (west) side of the Jordan River, the West Bank designation took further hold.


So, on behalf of Roman, British, and Arab imperialism and expansionism, you media folks are obviously correct to agree on renaming Israel, Judea, and Samaria from their prior 3,000 year old designations to the newer ones. Despite what the Christian Gospel of Matthew says (2:1), Jesus was born in Bethlehem of the West Bank...not Judea. But, again, watch out for those extremist Jews and others who will disagree.


They’ll also tell you that after the Jews fought for their freedom against their Roman oppressors and Herod--whom your own reports and articles state was seen by most Jews as a Roman stooge--no other people ever had an independent nation there as it was simply conquered by one imperial power after another--including the Arab Caliphates which ruled it for several centuries from either Damascus or Baghdad. Those Jews will tell you that the vast majority of Arabs arrived in the wake of these 7th century Arab imperial conquests when they burst out of the Arabian Peninsula and spread in all directions, conquering millions of native non-Arab peoples and forcibly Arabizing their lands. And they’ll say that most Arabs didn’t settle themselves in “Palestine” until after the late 19th century. Furthermore, they’ll cite the Records Of The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League Of Nations and numerous other sources to make their point. Everyone knows how deceitful those Jews can be...


Remember...this is all Zionist propaganda...as is the Jews’ claim that the Emperor Hadrian, after they dared to revolt a second major time against Roman rule in 132-135 C.E., decided to end their hopes once and for all by renaming the land itself after their historic enemies, the Philistines--a non-Semitic sea people from the Aegean or eastern Mediterranean region. Judaea --as Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Flavius Josephus, and other major contemporary Roman and Roman-sponsored historians wrote extensively about--was thus renamed Syria Paleastina.


So Zionists hold that the very name “Palestine” itself represents the imperial conquest of the Jews and the tragic consequences which followed.


If all the above is not enough, there’s something else which adds even more to my confusion...


Most of you mainstream media folks supposedly don’t like nasty imperialism and the fruits of it. I don’t either.


So, I can’t understand how you insist on using new names, like the “West Bank,” born of imperial conquest and massacres of Jews in their quest for freedom in their own land, in your articles and reporting instead of names which those places were known as for thousands of years before.


As I’m sure you’ve guessed by now, none of the above are really just figments of the Zionist imagination or Zionist propaganda.


My real confusion, thus, is why the the Associated Press, the BBC, and most of the rest of the allegedly “liberal” mainstream media treat such things as if they were.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

It's All In The Timing...Rice's Meeting With The Syrians

It’s All In The Timing...

by Gerald A. Honigman

I’m a reasonable sort of guy...really.

I’m all for logic, exchange of ideas, and so forth. In fact, I’m often accused of being too loquacious...if you know what I mean (my publishers certainly do).

Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice was at Sharm el-Sheikh on May 3rd attending an international what-to-do-about-Iraq conference. The Syrians have been pressing for better ties with the United States--ties soured due to their murderous shenanigans in Lebanon and Iraq contrary to Washington’s desires.

Notice I left out their actions involving Israel. Not an accident...

Secretary Rice met with her Syrian counterpart, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, the first high-level contact in a few years. This marked a turnaround from the previous approach which required a change in Syrian behavior first.

While this was recommended earlier by the Baker-Hamilton Commission (see http://www.britanniaradio.co.uk/?q=node/375 ), it had largely been placed by the Bush administration onto the backburner until a marked change in Syrian behavior was forthcoming.

The Syrians or their local stooges have been eliminating one Lebanese leader and patriot after another who dared oppose Damascus’s vision of Lebanon as being merely its western province. Additionally, good evidence points to Syria as being the haven for both Saddam’s missing WMDs and “militants” crossing the border into Iraq.

So, Washington has good reason to be miffed.

But, as I said above, what’s wrong with a chat?

In theory, perhaps nothing...

But in this case the logical outcome of such dialogue is indeed a problem.

The mid-19th century British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, once said something to the effect that nations don’t have permanent friends...just interests. Keep this in mind.

The New York Times report about Rice’s meeting quoted American officials as stating that they do not plan to trade away Lebanon for Syria’s help in Iraq. As State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, put it, “The Lebanese people have no better friend than the United States.”

Now, who could find fault with that statement? Certainly not me.

But here’s the problem...

The State Department has long known what carrot of choice would be used at the proper moment--and it ain’t Lebanon.

As I had written much earlier, despite Syria’s deadly hegemonic attitudes and actions towards what it sees as its Lebanese “province;” despite its appalling treatment of Kurds, native Jews, and others; despite its support for terrorists undermining Iraq’s attempt at democracy; despite the great likelihood that many of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction found their way to Syria; despite Damascus’ support of major terrorist organizations whose aim is the destruction of the Israel and giving safe haven to those organizations within its own borders; despite its record as mass slaughterer of any and all who decent, author of the infamous “Hama Solution;” etc., etc., and so forth...America would be squeezing the Jews right now--not the Syrians-- if circumstances were just a bit different.

You see, it’s Israel--not Lebanon--who the Foggy Folks have in mind as the main sacrificial offering.

Keep in mind that not long ago Israel had suggested, itself, that it wanted to resume negotiations with Syria--the nation which, along with Iran, used Hizbullah last summer in a proxy war against Jerusalem.

The Foggy Folks demanded that the Jews not do this.

The time was not yet ripe as far as America--or least the State Department--was concerned.

To hell with what the Jews felt their own, on the scene and in the bull’s eye interests required.

But now, things have taken continuous turns for the worse in Iraq--despite Washington’s honorable efforts. Any “progress” will most likely not survive an American withdrawal.

So now, it’s time to bring out the icing on the cake as far as Syria is concerned...

Former Secretary of State James Baker III pledged to Assad I, butcher of Damascus, during George I’s administration, a total Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

George II made Baker, Bush close family friend and quail hunting partner (whose law firm represents the Saudis and other Arabs as well), his Special Middle East Envoy. Baker has worked behind the scenes for decades--among other things, taking good care of all of his and his buddies’ lucrative Arab petrodollar connections (Condi even has an oil tanker named for her in the Chevron fleet). Additionaly, Baker has a most definite Jew problem as well (not that he’s unique--especially in the circles he hangs out in). See http://www.paktoday.com/honig9.htm for a bit more about this.

Note that upon the breakup of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after World War I, the Golan was part of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine until Britain and France did some imperial trading. The territory had changed hands often throughout the centuries. Jews also had a long history here.

Recall how Syria used the Heights to rain death and terror on Israelis below prior to the 1967 War--which it also largely instigated. And, in 1973, Israel was attacked on its holiest day,Yom Kippur, from the Syrian side of the Heights as well. This time, the combined Arab assault almost succeeded in Israel’s destruction. Today, the Syrians have even better weaponry and the same murderous intentions as far as Jews are concerned.

Not long ago, an Israeli Prime Minister offered, as was done after 1967, an almost complete return of the Heights in exchange for true peace. The exception would cover a tiny stretch of land protecting Israel’s water sources.

Think about what usually happens to such land when others are attacked from it. Are the victims that generous and understanding in the aftermath of wars launched from those territories aimed at their very destruction?

Think about how much territory--including land acquired by the United States far away from home--has changed hands this way...

Israel currently controls the passes Syrian tanks would use to roll down hill to kill Jews. From the Heights, Israeli artillery can send Assad II and friends a calling card if need be. Right now Syrian artillery and gunners can’t do this anymore to Jews. And right now Israel is assured that an enemy sworn to its death will not be in control of its water supply.

That’s what’s at stake with America’s forthcoming new approach with Syria.

What would America do with such an enemy (need I ask)?

A key element in Baker’s recent Commission’s plan involved the resurrection of his old idea to appease Arab dictators--in this case Syrian ones--at the Jews’ expense.

Numerous politicians and military experts who have visited the Golan and have seen what Israel is up against have said that a complete Israeli withdawal from an area so vital to its security--given the nature of the enemy it faces, in particular--is both unreasonable and suicidal.

Those who hold that a return of the Golan to Syria will bring peace are the fools’ fools.

But, in the State Departments’s case, foolishness has nothing to do with it.

The Foggy Folks know the Syrians very well. So, it’s even worse.

No friends...just interests.

The ball is now in Israel’s court.

Olmert and his suicidal gang must go.

New elections are a must, and Israel must, unfortunately, once again learn how to say “no” when its own vital interests are at stake...even if it must say it to its best friend.

Too bad another American President has allowed it to come to this point.

Others, like Ronald Reagan, understood that U. N. Security Council Resolution 242 did not expect Israel to withdraw to its 1949 Auschwitz/armistice lines and was entitled to secure and defensible borders. Reasonable compromise was the ticket.

Unfortunately, George II, by apparently allowing the State Department (which opposed Israel’s rebirth in the first place) to once again have its way with the Jew of the Nations--is proving Lord Palmerston right once again.

He had many of us fooled.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks