Quoting That Famous Hebrew Sage...
By Gerald A. Honigman (04/02/07)
It's good 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 The 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.
Gerald A. Honigman
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gerald A. Honigman
