by Gerald A. Honigman

“It pays to be the king.”

Or, at least a prince.

No, this observation didn’t come from Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Samuel, or any of those other famous ancient Jews. In fact, Samuel didn’t even want the latter to have a mortal king. He feared the corrupting influence of power. Truer fears never existed, as our current case in point testifies to.

Our Hebrew sage of the day is Mel Brooks, and I quoted him as he lusted after a young French woman in the days prior to the French Revolution in his movie, History of the World: Part I.

On March 28th the Arab League held its latest summit in Saudi Arabia, and, among other things, London’s Daily Telegraph quoted Prince Saud al-Faisal as stating:

It has never been proven that reaching out to Israel achieves anything…Other Arab countries have recognized Israel and what has that achieved? The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognized Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace.

Saud was commenting on the Arabs’ offer to Israel to accept the Saudi Peace (of the grave) Plan–or else !

How’s that for negotiations?

This followed in the wake of the recent Saudi brokered good cop/bad cop deal between Hamas and Fatah’s Abbas to form a new Palestinian Arab Unity Government.

As discussed in greater detail in my last analysis, Hugo’s Peace Plan, among other things, that Arab “peace” demands that a nine-mile wide Israel accept millions of allegedly “returning” jihadi refugees. The Jews must replace blown buses, teen night clubs, pizzerias, and restaurants with their own suicide…or return to the blown buses and worse again.

Such a bargain!

Power indeed corrupts–in all kinds of ways.

And in this case, it exacerbates an already present Arab predilection to dismiss anyone else’s justice but their own as illegitimate.

Think also about those blatant, outright royal lies above.

Reaching out to Israel achieves nothing?

How about this, for starters…

Historically, empires, kingdoms, and nations have lost territory repeatedly when they used–or let others use–such territory to attack neighbors or threatened others’ “national interests.”

For the sake of a very cold peace, Israel returned the biggest protective buffer zone and tank trap it ever had, the Sinai Peninsula, to an Egypt which had repeatedly invaded, blockaded, and terrorized it from that territory and the adjacent Gaza Strip. Indeed, Egypt had used the latter as its key invasion route to attack Jews since the days of the Pharaohs.

But, after the late Egyptian President, Anwar al-Sadat, flew directly to Jerusalem for the sake of peace, Israel responded with relinquishing the oil fields that it largely developed at Abu Rudeis (its chance at energy self-sufficiency), key air fields and other military bases, and the only semblance of somewhat meaningful strategic depth that it ever possessed in modern times.

How’s that for Arabs getting something for their “overtures?”

Keep in mind that repeated Egyptian blockades of Israel, not to mention its outright military aggression, were recognized casus belli.

No doubt, others have permanently lost (and America and others gained) territory for far less…not to mention how Arabs acquired most of “their” territory in the first place–by conquering and forcibly Arabizing it from others, like those native Copts and Nubians in Egypt (since the Prince brought that nation up as an example) who predated the Arab conquest by millennia.

Want more Hebrew overtures?

How about Gaza?

After handing it over to Hamas, Fatah, and other jihadis–knowing full well that it would only bring the latter’s rockets, mortars, etc., that much closer to Israel proper, what did Israel get in return? Just what those of us with functioning neurons expected…hundreds of additional rockets and such launched at Israeli towns and cities in Israel proper.

Next… that famous Oslo Peace…

With the forced Rabin-Arafat handshake at President Clinton’s Whitehouse, Israel withdrew from disputed–not purely Arab–lands and got the highest casualties due to Arab terror in return for that overture.

Several decades ago, Israel was forced to go after the PLO in southern Lebanon because of the unceasing terror it launched from that territory and the Lebanese refusal or impotence to do anything about it. When Israel, despite continuing problems, gave up that land as well and the United Nations confirmed that Israel had indeed withdrawn from all Lebanese territory, Israel got renewed attacks from Hizbullah anyway in return–leading to last summer’s war.

In a move towards Syria–which had bombarded Israel for almost two decades from the Golan Heights–Prime Minister Barak offered to give virtually the entire Golan back. Syria lost this strategic territory in the Six Day War in ‘67, which it was also key in instigating.

Note that the Golan was originally slated to be part of the Mandate of Palestine, from which only a small part (one fifth) was resurrected as Israel. This came after Arab (Trans-)Jordan was carved out of the lion‘s share of the territory in 1922. The Arabs subsequently refused the ’47 partition plan which would have divided the 20% of the land left after the creation of Jordan roughly in half…so Arabs would have wound up with about 90% of the entire pie. The Brits and the French did some imperial trading upon the breakup of the Turks’ earlier four centuries old empire, and so the Heights became part of modern Syria.

The deal Barak offered fell through because the Syrians insisted on controlling several hundred yards Israel needed to insure that its water sources wouldn’t fall under Syrian control. And, after all, Secretary of State James Baker III had promised Saddam’s twin butcher in Damascus, Hafez al-Assad, a total Israeli withdrawal. Note that this is the same Baker–Bush family best friend–whose law firm represents the Saudis today…including against fellow Americans currently suing them over 9/11. And Baker’s law partner is the American Ambassador to Riyadh.

This story could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.

As revealed, once again, in the Hamas-Fatah Mecca Accord and more recently in the Arab League Summit in Saudi Arabia, Israel wasn’t given that supposed offer that it simply couldn’t refuse.

The Arabs are simply up to their same old rejectionist games, but this time they are emboldened even more by Israel’s worst performance ever last year–for whatever reasons–in a war against Hizbullah and its Syrian and Iranian sponsors; billions of dollars in petrobucks at their disposal and the assorted international sycophant supporters such money can buy; huge quantities of state-of-the-art armaments supplied by America and others as well; and knowing that Israel is outnumbered some 60 to 1 by them–and that figure doesn’t include hostile non-Arab Iranians and others as well.

The Arabs also think that Israel will have to fight with one hand tied behind its back, not striking out, for example, at Saudi strategic assets–i.e. oil–for fear of provoking the wrath of other nations, including the United States.

America, with the State Department in the lead, has pressured Israel repeatedly over the decades into going along with such one-sided deals that were contrary to its own national interests and very survival.

The time for this American behavior must now come to an end. That others so indulge is no excuse.

Despite America’s best efforts to coax some virtually meaningless words out of Israel’s alleged Arab “peace” partners, it should be obvious by now, with Abbas and the Saudi prince’s recent remarks, that even that is too much to ask. And for this, those who care about Israel should in fact be grateful.

Honesty is indeed better than lies. And the State Department–with the President’s continued backing–will be totally exposed as being hostile to Israel’s very existence if it pressures Israel further at this point.

There are scores of millions of Americans who indeed care and can see through what’s gong on. And many of them do indeed vote.

Despite the above Saudi accusations about Israel, nothing but an Arab takeover of Israel–peaceful or otherwise–is still all that is being offered by those alleged “moderate” Arab peacemakers.

And the State Department’s darling, Mahmoud Abbas, has been saying the same things all along. He has always insisted–long before the Saudi plan–that Israel would have to consent to being overwhelmed by “returning” jihadis, and this after Israel is forced to return to its pre-’67, 9-mile wide armistice line existence. He ran on a platform proclaiming this, and has always insisted that he won’t budge on this issue. The State Department and at least two American Presidents have known about this all along–even while they continuously tried to sell Arafat, Abbas and their muderous Fatah as Israel’s “peace partner,” the alleged good cop as opposed to the Hamas bad cop.

In light of Prince Saud’s comments, the question that now really needs to be asked, considering the Mecca Accord and the current Saudi peace of the grave initiative, is how Arabs, not Jews, have responded to real peace overtures–not counterfeit ones like the Arabs themselves have made.

Yet, again, the Arabs should be commended for their honesty.

And Israel must, unfortunately, plan for a war that will make us recall the early days of June ‘67 once more.

Many wish there was a better alternative. But the Arabs need to wish that too.

From the Zionist Organization of America:

ZOA: BUSH ADMINISTRATION SHOULD DROP FICTION THAT PALESTINIANS ACCEPT ISRAEL & SEEK PEACEFUL STATE ALONGSIDE ISRAEL

New York — The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is urging the Bush Administration to drop the fiction that Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Arabs in general have accepted Israel’s existence as Jewish state and seek a peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel, following Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s comments to the media in Jerusalem on Sunday that, “I think that the desire for peace and support for a two-state solution is far broader in the two communities, among the Palestinian people and among the Israeli people, than just the two leaders [Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas].

It’s, in fact, something that has shown up in all kinds of polls. It’s shown up in all kinds of discussions with people on both sides that the Palestinian people and the Israeli people would like to have peace” (State Department, March 25, 2007).

Rice made further comments in the same vein about Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas today, claiming that “President Abbas truly desires to be a partner for peace. . President Abbas told his people that he could end the occupation by ending violence” (State Department, March 27, 2007).

Yet, only weeks ago, Abbas and his Fatah Party joined the Hamas terrorist government after signing the Mecca Agreement. Those like Condoleezza Rice who have hung on to the mirage of Abbas’ alleged moderation must now confront the naked reality of Abbas joining an openly terrorist regime under an agreement which does not call for peace but for more terrorism; demands the so-called ‘right of return’ of Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants to Israel and thus Israel’s dissolution; demands the release of jailed Palestinian Arab terrorists; and does not in fact even mention Israel let alone recognize it.

Secretary Rice’s words are completely at odds with the record of Mahmoud Abbas’ words and deeds and innumerable Palestinian opinion polls.

Mahmoud Abbas’ own words:

On recognizing Israel:” It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel” (Al-Arabiya [Dubai] and PA TV, October 3, 2006).

Fighting Israel: “We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation . Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at The Occupation” (Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2007; Independent Media & Review Analysis, January 12, 2007).

On Jews: “The sons of Israel are corrupting humanity on earth” (World Net Daily, January 11, 2007).

On Israel: “the Zionist enemy” (Associated Press, January 4, 2005; CNN.com, January 7, 2005).

On suicide bombers: “Allah loves the martyr” (Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2005).

On wanted Palestinian terrorists: “heroes fighting for freedom” (Age [Melbourne], January 3, 2005); “Israel calls them murderers, we call them strugglers” (Jerusalem Post, December 25, 2004).

On Palestinian terrorist leaders Yasser Arafat, Hamas’ Ahmad Yasin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Fathi Shikaki: “martyrs” (Palestinian Media Center, September 9, 2005)

On Hamas: “We must unite the Hamas and Fatah blood in the struggle against Israel as we did at the beginning of the intifada. We want a political partnership with Hamas” (Jerusalem Post, February 5, 2007).

On Yasser Arafat: “It is our duty to implement the principles of Yasser Arafat” (Haaretz, January 3, 2005); “We will continue in the path of the late president until we fulfill all his dreams” (Agence France-Presse, November 11, 2005); “The Palestinian leadership won’t stray from Arafat’s path” (Yediot Ahronot, November 11, 2006)

On disarming Palestinian terrorists: a “red line” that must not be crossed (Washington Times, January 3, 2005)

On jailed Palestinian terrorists: “our heroes.” (Israel National News, May 26, 2006).

On the so-called ‘right of return’ of Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants which, if implemented would end Israel as a Jewish state: “The issue of the refugees is non-negotiable” (Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2007).

On the Lebanese terrorist group Hizballah: A source of pride and sets an example for the “Arab resistance” (Jerusalem Post, August 6, 2006).

Saddam Hussein: “Saddam Hussein has entered history as a symbol of Pan-Arab nationalism” (Independent Media Review and Analysis, December 31, 2006).

Abbas’ own deeds:

Holocaust denial: He wrote a PhD thesis and published a book denying the Holocaust.

Terrorist group Fatah: He co-founded with arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat the terrorist group Fatah, whose Constitution to this day calls for the destruction of Israel (Article 12) and the use of terrorism against Israelis as an indispensable part of the struggle to achieve that goal (Article 19).

Funding terrorism: as senior PLO official, he funded the Munich massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972.

Terror & incitement to violence: He has refused to implement the signed Oslo agreements and the 2003 Roadmap peace plan which requires him to fight, arrest, extradite and jail terrorists and confiscate their weaponry and end the incitement to hatred and murder in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps that feeds it.

Terrorists’ plan for more violence: In May 2006, he endorsed the so-called ‘Prisoners’ Plan’, a document produced by jailed Palestinian terrorists, that endorses continued terrorism against Israel, legitimizes the murder of Jews, does not accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, abrogates Palestinian obligations under the signed Oslo agreements and the 2003 Roadmap peace plan, and insists on the ‘right of return.’

Money for suicide bombers’ families: In December 2005, he approved legislation mandating financial benefits to be paid to families of killed Palestinian terrorists.

Palestinian Polls:

February 2007: 75% of Palestinian Arabs do not think that Israel has a right to exist; 70% of Palestinian Arabs support a one-state solution in which Jews would be a minority, not a two-state solution with a Palestinian Arab state living peacefully alongside Israel (Near East Consulting (NEC) poll, February 12-15, 2007).

September 2006: 67% of Palestinian Arabs oppose Hamas recognizing Israel (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) poll, September 14-16, 2006).

September 2006: 57% of Palestinian Arabs support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians; 75% support the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in a bid to obtain the release of jailed Palestinians terrorists; 63% are inspired by the Lebanese Islamist terror group Hizballah and seek to emulate it (Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) poll, September 2006)

September 2006: 61.3% of Palestinian Arabs support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians; 52.5% support rocket attacks upon Israeli population
centers (Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah University, September 7-9, 2006).

June 2006: 56% of Palestinians support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians (Palestinian Center for Policy & Survey Research (PCPSR) poll,
June 2006).

February 2006: 83.3% of the Palestinian Arabs oppose dropping the legally and morally baseless so-called ‘right of return’ of refugees and their millions of descendants to Israel and reject substitute solutions to the refugee issue (Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO) poll, February 16-20, 2006).

February 2006: 56.2% support terrorism against Israeli civilians (Jerusalem Media and Communications Center (JMCC) poll, February 8-12, 2006).

December 2005: 51% of Palestinian Arabs oppose the disarming of terrorist groups; 82% support the absorption of members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad into the PA. (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, December 6-8, 2005).

December 2005: 69% of Palestinians see terrorism as legitimate; 65% support Al-Qaeda actions in the USA and Europe (Fafo poll, December 22, 2005).

October 2005: 60% of Palestinian Arabs oppose the PA disarming the terrorist groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Bir Zeit University poll, October 2005).

December 2004: 66% of Palestinian Arabs oppose the PA disarming the terrorist groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Bir Zeit University poll, December 2004).

April 2003: 75.6% of Palestinian Arabs support terrorism against Israeli civilians (Jerusalem Media and Communications Center (JMCC) poll, April 2003).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “We continue to be perplexed that Bush Administration officials like Secretary Rice persist in making flat-earth statements about Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Arabs in general and their alleged desire for peace with Israel in a state alongside her.

It is especially worrying that Secretary Rice believes that Palestinian polls bear out her completely false evaluations - Palestinian polls have consistently shown extremism and support for violence to be widely supported by Palestinian Arabs.

The evidence we have provided (of which there is much more) shows that these claims are simply not credible or accurate.

By stating the opposite of what the facts warrant, Secretary Rice is misleading the American public and pursuing a policy which lacks any factual basis and which will lead to another terrorist state while appeasing terrorists and terrorism. It is vital to realize that policies built on illusions will tragically fail and the sooner U.S. policy is revised the better.

“It is crystal clear from these polls and a great deal of other data that Palestinian Arab society clearly opposes acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state and consistently supports terrorism against Israeli civilians in an attempt to undermine Israel’s survival as a Jewish state.

When consistent majorities of Palestinian Arabs are shown to support terrorism and non-acceptance of Israel, it is clear that there can at present be no peace process with such a society and its like-minded leadership.

Under these circumstances, there should be no discussion of a Palestinian state. Rather than giving unmerited praise to Palestinian Arabs for moderation, the Bush Administration should fearlessly state the truth and make it clear that there will be no concessions, no negotiations and no American funds until the PA fights, arrests, extradites and jails terrorists and confiscates their weaponry and ends the incitement to hatred and murder in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps that feeds it.

All of these promises were made by the Palestinian Arabs in the Oslo I, Oslo II, Hebron and Wye Agreements as well as the Roadmap, yet not a single one has been fulfilled.”

As long as Europe allows the Arabs to fantasize about “the right of return” there can be no end to this conflict.

by Alexander Zvielli, Jerusalem Post

Why was Raymond Johansen, the Norwegian deputy foreign minister, in such a hurry to be the first European representative to meet Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister of the new Palestinian unity government in Gaza?

What was the hurry? He certainly read Haniyeh’s March 17 speech in which the Hamas chief outlined the Fatah/Hamas government program. Haniyeh said: “The government affirms that resistance is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people.” And he knows what Haniyeh means by “resistance” - suicide bombings of cafes and buses, drive-by shootings, rocket launchings.

He knows the new government demands the “right of return” to pre-1967 Israel for millions of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendents. He knows that means that killing Israel demographically.

Johansen knows that the Fatah/Hamas government does not renounce violence; that it will not honor previous agreements signed by the PLO, and that it will never recognize the right of a sovereign Jewish state to exist anywhere in the Middle East.

So, I asked myself, again, just what was Johansen’s rush?

Read the full article »

From the Jerusalem Post:

Hamas denied Monday that the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Cpl. Gilad Schalit was imminent, saying only that it was currently “not on the agenda,” Israel Radio reported.

“The Palestinian people have other, more pressing issues to deal with,” Hamas spokesman Razi Hamed said. He added that there was no connection to be made between the establishment of a unity government and the release of Schalit.

Hamas’s comments follwed remarks by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Monday in which she said that Israel had a better reason to believe Abbas’s promises of Schalit’s release now that Abbas and Hamas were working together.

Read the full article »

by Joy Wolfe

How many times have you heard critics of Israel claim that the Jews drove out the Palestinians in 1948 when a UN vote created neighbouring states of Israel and Palestine.

As we know the Palestinians rejected the partition and five Arab armies attacked the fledgling Jewish state, and to this day have continued to have varied stages of war, both hot and cold.

Israel has not know one day of real peace in her 59 year history, and currently is not only fighting a war against terror, but also a war of words against the media and against the many enemies of Israel who distort the truth and disseminate lies.

Among those lies are the allegations that the Palestinians were driven out or attacked and that that was the start of their long history as refugees, with a current ludicrous claim that there are now around 5 -6 million Palestinian refugees, all seeking the right of Return.

Setting aside the fact that our enemies prefer not to admit that around 900,000 Jews were forced to flee Arab countries at the time of the declaration of independence of Israel, and certainly would never facilitate their Right of Return, what better way could their be to refute the allegations about the Palestinians being driven out than to listen to the words of Palestinian spokespeople and media outlets.

The quotes below very strongly testify to the Jewish claim that the Palestinians were not driven out, but left at the unequivocal, albeit mistaken advice of their own leaders. There are eye and ear witness reports of the lengths Israel went to to try to persuade the Arabs to stay. Indeed many did and they and their descendants make up Israel’s Arab population to this day.

Don’t take my word for it - read the following quotes and you will see the Palestinian version:

QUOTE: “The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees.”
The Jordanian daily newspaper Falistin, Feb 19, 1949.

QUOTE: “For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumours exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs…”
The Jordanian daily newspaper, Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.

QUOTE: “The 15th May, 1948 arrived… on that day the Mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab countries were about to enter and fight in the stead.”
The Egyptian daily Akhbar El Yom, Oct 12, 1963.

QUOTE: “The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem.” ? Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948.

“Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it.” ? The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951.

QUOTE: “The Palestinian People does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means of continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”
Zahir Musehin (Palestine Liberation Organisation executive committee member. March 31, 1977 in the Dutch newspaper ‘Trouw’)

In addition to all that the international community conveniently forgets that the Palestinians have been thrown out of many Arab countries, yet it is only Israel they want to saddle with a refugee problem.

The situation of the Palestinians in Lebanon deteriorated steadily in the wake of the expulsion of PLO terrorists following the 1982 Israeli invasion. By some accounts, of the 375,218 Palestinians registered as refugees with UNRWA in Lebanon, only some 200,000 remain, over half of them living in refugee camps; others have fled from the inhospitable conditions that successive Lebanese governments have sustained over the last two decades. A constant complaint of the Palestinians left in Lebanon is that there are restrictions on their right to work, and without work permits they are denied many benefits, including medical insurance. As for where they are allowed to work, they cannot be doctors, pharmacists, engineers, lawyers or journalists. Sounds like the word apartheid would aptly describe the position of Palestinians in Lebanon!!

Initially the response of host Arab states to the incoming Palestinian refugees from Lebanon was to offer them refuge on the assumption that it would be temporary. When it became obvious that the problem would be protracted, the policies of Arab states toward the refugees changed, and the initial sympathy was coupled with an insistence on Israel’s ultimate responsibility for them. As a result most Arab governments strongly opposed resettlement and naturalization of the refugees. Instead, they adopted policies and procedures aimed at preserving the Palestinian identity of the individuals and their status as refugees.

Among countries that have either expelled Palestinians or made them very unwelcome are Syria, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan and Libya. They are the only refugee group not to be granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia. Kuwait expelled tens of thousands in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War when the Palestinian leadership backed Saddam Hussein and his oppressive policies. Egypt denies access to many Palestinians. Libya failed to renew residence permits for 30,000 Palestinians in 1995 and began deporting them when they were annoyed by Arafat’s feeble attempts to reach a peace treaty with Israel.

In addition to that the Arab countries including the very rich oil states have consistently failed to make any meaningful contribution to the welfare of the Palestinians, preferring to leave that responsibility to to the international community, the USA, the European Union, and even Israel. Where are the pressure groups such as UNWRA, Human Rights Watch, B’tselem, Jews for Justice for the Palestinians and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign when it comes to fighting for the rights of the Palestinians in Arab countries. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about the hidden agenda behind the protests being confined only to Israel!

When people talk about the plight of the Palestinian refugees you should respond with some simple questions; Why are there still refugees in camps - Why have they been kept as political pawns – Why did the UN pass a resolution banning Israel from improving housing conditions for the refugees in Gaza - and finally and most importantly, Where is all the money that the international community including the UK and the USA have donated to improve the living conditions and infrastructure in the Palestinian authority area. If it had been used as intended instead of stashed away in private bank accounts or used to pay terrorists and fund weapons, then the Palestinians would have a better standard of living and much of the unrest need not have festered.

From TheMediaLine:

Former Israeli Army Chief Of General Staff Accuses Iran Of Funding Fatah, Hamas, Hizbullah

A former Israeli army chief of General Staff says Iran is funding all of the major opponents of Israel: Hizbullah, Fatah and Hamas. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon said in a speech on Tuesday that contrary to claims that all problems in the Middle East resulted from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “The source of the problem is Iran. The Iranians are giving money to Hamas, Fatah and Hizbullah.” Iranian news agencies reported on Tuesday that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard would hold two days of war games in the Gulf and Sea of Oman this week. The primary purpose of the exercise is to practice firing missiles.

STANDWITHUS RELEASES “ISRAEL 101″ A COMPREHENSIVE BOOKLET ON ISRAEL

AND THE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT AIMED AT CAMPUSES, LIBRARIES AND COMMUNITIES

(Los Angeles) — StandWithUs [SWU], the international non-profit Israel education and advocacy organization, today released its highly-anticipated “Israel 101″, a comprehensive booklet on Israel and the Arab-Israel conflict. SWU National Director, Roz Rothstein is “proud to distribute this educational tool around the world so people concerned about Israel, Palestinians, and the Arab-Israeli conflict have essential information readily available.”

ISRAEL 101, is unique because it is not text-heavy, yet provides a complete overview of Israel’s history using creative lay-outs and photographs that bring the state’s past and present to life in only 44 pages. Simple, easy-to-read charts and graphics summarize basic facts and chronology ranging from the Arab-Israeli wars to terrorism, America and Israel’s relationship, the recent Hezbollah war, Israel’s governmental system to the stats of Jewish and Palestinian refugees of 1948, and today’s hot button issues including the security fence, checkpoints and Intifada. Carefully footnoted, the booklet allows readers to do further research on any to

“StandWithUs campus’ mission is to empower students with the necessary tools to counter misinformation about Israel,” explains Rebecca Olch, SWU Campus Coordinator. Adds Dani Klein, SWU East Coast Campus Coordinator, “The students we work with across North and South America, Israel, Europe and Australia repeatedly ask for an easy-to-use primer and reference guide. ISRAEL 101 is SWU’s response to that pressing need.”

Offers historian Roberta P. Seid, PhD, Education/Research Consultant for SWU, “Our goal was to present a strictly factual account that would be useful to people across the political spectrum. Then, whatever interpretations or policy positions they take will at least be based on documented facts.”

SWU will distribute the booklet worldwide to libraries, schools, churches, synagogues, rabbis, journalists, bookstores and organizations. It is also available to individuals who would like to order a single copy.

ISRAEL101 supplements and expands on SWU’s original 16-page brochure, “Sometimes Things Aren’t What They Seem…” produced in 2002. More than 600,000 copies have been distributed world-wide and orders continue to flood the office for the brochure which was translated into French, Spanish and Hebrew.

“We believe our new booklet will be distributed even more widely than our original brochure,” states Esther Renzer, SWU National President. “Hopefully, it will promote greater understanding and will foster an informed and fair debate about Israel. That is our mission.”

For a limited time, ISRAEL 101 is available for $1.00 on an order of 25 or more (regular price is $2.00). Students can receive 10 free copies as an initial promotion.

Contact StandWithUs by phone: 1-310-836-6140 or visit the StandWithUs website.

by Gerald A. Honigman

New York Times syndicated columnist, Thomas L. Friedman, has gained some wisdom over the years.

For a journalist, he has achieved a level of knowledge on matters pertaining to the volatile Middle East that most others in his profession seldom achieve.

So, first, let’s look at the good news…

He’s correct when he states in a recent op-ed that America must end its oil addiction as it attempts to exit Iraq and presumably try to solve other issues in the region as well. And, in another recent article, he proclaimed that Iraq is so severely fractured, that it is beyond being the Arab Yugoslavia anymore.

I can agree with all of that and have written the same things much earlier in many of my own widely-published articles–including ones showcased by the Kurdish Regional Government itself in Iraq.

But Tom fails to make necessary connections to what he himself writes.

While repeatedly expecting Jews to bare the necks of their kids in a return to the Auschwitz/armistice lines (which made Israel a mere 9-miles wide at its strategic waist)–not borders–of 1949 with an Arab enemy sworn to the destruction of Israel no matter who is at the helm of the Arabs’ proposed state # 22, here’s what he had to say to some 30 million truly stateless Kurds, who have been slaughtered and displaced by the hundreds of thousands over the last century by Arabs both in Syria and Iraq (and many more by others as well) in a March 26, 2003 op-ed. Friedman advised that the Kurds in Iraq should be told point blank:

“What part of ’no’ don’t you understand? ..You Kurds are not breaking away.”

Just imagine if Israel was to say that under no circumstances would another state be permitted to be created for Arabs in “Palestine“ (Jordan having been carved out, in 1922, of some 80% of the original borders of Mandatory Palestine as Britain received it on April 25, 1920).

Tom would have a bloomin’ fit.

Yet he told Kurds, who were repeatedly massacred by Arabs, that they were not entitled to even one of what he claims Arabs are entitled to some two dozen of–most created, by the way, by the conquest and forced Arabization of non-Arab peoples and their lands.

I guess imperialism is only nasty when non-Arabs are engaged in it.

But I will give him his due. In another op-ed which appeared in my local Florida paper on March 12, 2006, he finally came around a bit and stated that we should now tell the Kurds, “You’ve behaved most responsibly…If Iraq falls apart, we will make sure you’re taken care of.”

Notice, however, he still doesn’t call for a roadmap for Kurdistan. That’s still only reserved for his Arab buddies.

You know… such a Kurdish state would be “destabilizing” and all that stuff.

Of course, we all know that a murderous Fatah or Hamas-run state (makes no difference–despite what the Foggy Folks say), set up in Israel’s very backyard after its forced return to its nine-mile wide existence, won’t be destabilizing…

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

Now, I’m sure Tom knows that, besides the Jews, the Kurds are the one people in the region whom Foggy Bottom has shafted over and over again the most…with often bloody results. And since President Truman was correct regarding where the buck stops, that means American Presidents have gone along with this as well. Which brings us at least partly back to Friedman’s correct observation regarding petroleum politics.

While it’s well known that the very rebirth of the Jew of the Nations was opposed by the Foggy Folks, it perhaps is not as well known that British petroleum politics–in collusion with Arab nationalism–put the kiss of death on the one best chance Kurds ever had–before right now–at independence with the break up of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after World War I.

Kurds were indeed promised that independence, but after the Brits received a favorable decision from the League of Nations regarding Mosul and the oil around it in 1925, Kurdish hopes and dreams were aborted. A British-supported, united, and Arab-ruled Iraq emerged in all of the Mandate of Mesopotamia instead.

While the Brits’ other Mandate, the Mandate of Palestine (which was smaller than Mesopotamia) could undergo successive partitions and partition plans to address the needs of competing nationalisms, the Kurds were told that their cause was not worthy. And it has remained this way for three quarters of a century now.

Where have Friedman’s op-eds been over the decades regarding this tragic issue?

After all, he likes to write from an alleged position of morality, ethics, and such.

He’s not afraid, for example, to demand that Jews return to those Auschwitz lines, while anyone truly familiar with the goings on after 1949 (after Israel survived a massive Arab attack on its miniscule rebirth) would realize that this just ain’t so.

A reading of the U. N.‘s Ralph Bunch’s ‘49 armistice dealings would help Tommy as would readings of Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, U. N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, Britain’s U. N. Ambassador, Lord Caradon, and other architects of U. N. Security Council Resolution # 242 after the Six Day War in ‘67. They all explained why Israel was not expected to return to the status quo ante and was entitled to secure and real borders–not indefensible armistice lines. Yet that’s what Tommy continues to chastise Israel for.

Here’s Lord Caradon, for example…

“ 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.”

In Friedman’s most recent op-ed which appeared locally on December 26, among other things, his Rule #11 ( Mideast Rules For U.S. to Live By) proclaims that the Arabs have really “…been hurt by Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.” True, he also mentions the Arabs own faults here as well.

So, there’s Tom’s continuing problem…despite some admitted improvements.

Forget the fact that most of his so-called “Palestinians” were newcomers themselves into the Mandate–to the point that the very word refugee had to be redefined by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) to accommodate all of the Arab newcomers…some only arriving a mere two years before the combined Arab assault on Israel.

But, just where does Friedman think those territorial rectifications (allowed by 242, etc.) of the travesty of Israel’s 1949 armistice line existence are to be made if not in Judea and Samaria—aka, only via British imperialism in the last century, now known as the “West Bank?” Israel has already totally withdrawn from Sinai and Gaza.

Again, he needs to read Rostow & Co. very carefully. And if he has already done so, why does he act otherwise?

And why has Tommy repeatedly championed the Arabs’ twenty second state yet still has not come out for even one for tens of millions of victimized, stateless Kurds–who predate the Arabs in both Syria and Iraq by millennia?

I can understand–but not like–the real politik, use and abuse, games of the Foggy Folks and such.

But for a justice for poor Arabs (who now have “only” over six million square miles of territory under their rule) Friedman to take this hypocritical stance is beyond nauseating.

He perpetually worries about Jewish settlements in Judea (“land of the Jews“), but is mum about the majority of Arabs who were newcomers there themselves, i.e. Arab settlers setting up Arab settlements.

A look at the Records of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission only tells part of this story. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence and solid documentation for this if one is truly interested.

And has Tom read Ismet Cherif Vanly’s The Syrian (Arab) Mein Kampf Against the Kurds (Amsterdam, 1968), accounts of the Arabs’ ANFAL Campaign against Kurds in Iraq, the Arabs’ decades’ old genocide against black Africans, their continuing subjugation of Assyrians, Berbers, Copts, native kilab yahud “Jew dogs,” etc. and so forth in what Arabs proclaim as purely Arab patrimony?

While Mr. Morality complains about colonialism as well as settlements in his latest op-ed, why does he ignore all of the Arabs’ own victims mentioned above who were and are still subjected to the same thing–but only far worse–at the hands of his alleged Arab “victims” of injustice?

Where are Friedman’s op-eds about them and their share of justice?

He’s written many articles–reaching millions of readers–taking Israel to task for not unilaterally caving in to Arab demands regarding disputed territories which he incorrectly calls “Palestinian.” Again, a reading of Rostow on this is a must.

Well, this article must now come to end (while there‘s still much more to write)–or my publisher will have a fit.

But I think you get my drift.

Tom has improved…a dose of reality seems to have set in. But he still has much to learn.

One day he’ll arrive at being able to point the finger of blame in the right direction without trying to look politically correct by “balancing “ it with defaming the Jew of the Nations’ mere attempts at survival as well.

Few nations–if any–would show the restraint Israel is repeatedly expected to display to those who deliberately try to kill and maim its people and destroy its very national existence.

No terror… no checkpoints…n o fence… etc. and so forth.

Get it?

One day, perhaps… but as of now, Friedman obviously isn’t there yet.

From HIR

Just a few days ago, on 1 January 2007, Caroline Glick published an article in the Jerusalem Post that reports on a just-released US State Department cable from 33 years ago which demonstrates that the US State Department — the organ officially responsible for determining US foreign policy — knew that Yasser Arafat’s (now Mahmoud Abbas’s) Al Fatah, the controlling core of the PLO, was behind the deaths of US diplomats in Khartoum in the same year of 1973. And yet the State Department covered it up in order to protect the PLO.

Read the full article »

The video linked below from Jerusalem Online highlights some of the challenges presented to Israel by Hizbullah and Hamas.