Gerald Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral work in Middle East studies, has lectured on numerous university and other platforms. He has debated many of the best Arab and pro-Arab academics in public debates and on television. Mr. Honigman is widely published in academic journals, magazines, newspapers and other publications.
Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:01 pm A Quartet Of Petro-Dollar Addicted Hypocrites…
A Quartet Of Petro-Dollar Addicted Hypocrites…
by Gerald A. Honigman
There are certain quotes that just stick in your mind because of the profound nature of their message.
Since I've been studying the Middle East most of my life, quotes related to it especially come to mind. Take this one below, for example, by one of Rome's leading historians who wrote around the same time that Jews were taking on the conqueror of much of the known world for their freedom and independence…
"It inflamed (the emperor)Vespasian's ire that the Jews were the only nation which had not submitted...Titus was appointed by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea... he commanded three legions in Judaea itself... To these he added the twelfth from Syria and the third and twenty-second from Alexandria... amongst his allies were a band of Arabs, formidable in themselves and harboring towards the Jews the bitter animosity usually subsisting between neighboring nations (The Works of Tacitus, Volume II, Book V)..."
In modern times, there are two quotes which especially stand out in exposing what this analysis is all about. They are by Amazigh (North African "Berber") spokesmen explaining the collusion of those in the West and elsewhere addicted to the Arab petro-teat, with Arabs denying anyone and everyone else but themselves any rights at all in the region to the point of denying their very existence.
Follow this Special Dispatch of MEMRI on May 3, 2007 written by Belkacem Lounes of the World Amazigh Congress as he responded to Libya's Mu'ammar Qaddafi's denial of the very existence of the Amazigh people…
"The people of whom you speak...speak their own Amazigh language daily...every day live their Amazigh identity...What worse offense to elementary rights is there than denying the existence of a people...30 million in North Africa? You menace the Amazigh, warning that whosoever asserts his identity will be a traitor... (identical problems in Algeria and Morocco)...There is no worse colonialism than internal colonialism--that of the Pan-Arabist claim that seeks to dominate our people. It is surely Arabism--an imperialist ideology that refuses diversity--that constitutes an offense to history and truth..."
And examine very closely these next excerpts and paraphrases from the New English Review on January 18, 2008 and reported in North-of-Africa.com on July 3, 2009…
"In Algeria, Berbers were forbidden to use their own language, Tamazight...riots erupted, reported in France but ignored elsewhere in the West...America, of course, had been sufficiently subject to ARAMCO (the Arabian American Oil Company) propaganda, a payoff to the Saudis by Big Oil, to allow the latter to produce and market Arab oil. So, ARAMCO's message to America was that there is just an Arab world in this region in which there are no Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkmen...and, of course, no Berbers and no Jews--they all came to Israel, you see, from Europe for everyone in this region is just Arab."
The American State Department has been in bed with ARAMCO since its creation… get the picture?
When President Truman decided to recognize the reborn state of Israel in May 1948, he had to buck virtually his entire State Department (and others as well). Things have stayed about the same regarding the Foggy Folks' attitude towards Israel--and anyone else possibly treading on their Arab friends' toes--ever since.
Did you ever wonder, for instance, why the State Department is all gung ho for a roadmap to create a 22nd state for Arabs (their second, not first, in "Palestine) but shutters at the mere thought of creating a state for some 35 million perpetually used and abused stateless Kurds? While such a thought gets Turks and Iranians nervous too because of their own millions of subjugated Kurds, Arabs have called the potential birth of Kurdistan "another Israel," i.e., how dare anyone else in "their "region demand a slice of the justice pie. That they do this is understandable, if unfortunate. But that they can then get others --like the Quartet--to support them in furthering their own cause at the expense of everyone else in the region merely illustrates the problem we saw in the quotes above. Sure enough, after World War I, Kurds were promised an independent state in at least part of what became, as a result of the collusion of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism, the Arab League's "Iraq" instead.
Please keep all of the above in mind as we move on to today's news…
On August 17th, 2011, my local newspaper reported that the Quartet--the United States, European Union, Russia, and the United Nations-- criticized Israel for deciding to move ahead with the promise of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242--the main tool for post-'67 war peacemaking between Arab and Jew in the region.
Arabs--including the alleged "moderates"--have constantly refused to recognize a State of the Jews in the region, regardless of its size. Recall that one half of Israel's Jews were refugees from so-called "Arab" lands.
Arabs have refused this recognition to an Israel made a mere nine to fifteen miles wide by the '49 armistice lines, and--especially given the supportive attitudes of their assorted cheerleaders and sycophants around the world (including American leaders who bow to Arab kings and such)--certainly dismiss the idea of an Israel any larger as well.
The news story went on to explain that the Quartet opposed Israel's unilateral moves which would allow for more Jews to live in Jerusalem and in parts of Judea and Samaria --aka, the "West Bank" only as a result of early 2oth century British imperial shenanigans. Nowhere is it mentioned that Jews have millennial ties to those disputed (not "purely Arab") lands and owned property and lived there clear up to their massacres by Arabs in the 20th century. What is stated is that Arabs want those lands for themselves…
Wow! What a shock (not) !!!
But the deal is, wherever Arabs have come to live by forced conquest (i.e., most of the almost two dozen states they now have)they stake that very same claim. Check out that Amazigh response to Qaddafi again above. And keep in mind that 242 promised Israel real, secure borders at the end of peacemaking--not a return to the suicidal armistice lines imposed upon it in 1949. In other words, a meaningful territorial compromise is a must along these lines--regardless of what the Quartet says and threatens.
True, the article also mentions the need to return to negotiations ( aka, Jew arm twisting), but that's going nowhere fast--unless Netanyahu really does intend to cave in to Obama on the pre-'67 boundaries issue as a basis for resumed talks as has been reported of late. If those reports are true, he is courting disaster, regardless of how he thinks the game will play out…for a number of reasons (see my earlier analysis of this http://www.virtualjerusalem.co.....temid=4392)
And if you need further reason for why Arabs won't budge on the border issue themselves, look no further than the current American President's own stance on this…the most important spokesman--in real terms--for the Quartet. Unlike what he claims, most other American leaders did not agree with him on this matter--including his immediate predecessor. Unlike Obama, most stuck to the promise of 242 in terms of replacing Israel's absurd armistice lines--which did nothing but invite invasion and bisection--with far more secure and real political borders.
Arabs are not the only ones who can act unilaterally. If they declare independence in the UN this fall, then Israel must annex what it needs in the disputed territories to give it more depth and security--what the UN itself said it is entitled to via UNSC Resolution 242. Any 22nd state for Arabs must not come at the expense of the sole, resurrected nation Jews finally again got to have.
Now, on another issue, is it not sheer hypocrisy for the nations which make up the Quartet to be lecturing Israel about such things?
Jews building in Jerusalem… a problem? With but a few exceptions, they've been doing that long before most other nations even congealed as historical peoples.
None of those Quartet folks said a word after Transjordan invaded Jerusalem upon Israel's rebirth in 1948 and cut it in half, destroying age-old synagogues and such and denying Jews access to their holiest of sites in the eastern half of the city. When this situation finally ended after Jordan (name changed after it grabbed the west bank of the river as well as the east it was created from) joined Egypt and Syria's adventure in 1967 and their combined attempt to wipe Israel off the map backfired, Jerusalem was reunited--with free access restored to all peoples. It was at that moment that the current Quartet's hypocritical forerunners then demanded a re-division of the city.
Tell me, please, how a country like Russia, which via conquest of many other peoples' lands (something they have in common with the Arabs) became the largest nation on Earth today, tell Jews that they cannot live in lands that they have been connected to for millennia, and that they must once again become virtually invisible on a world globe? About 825 Israels could geographically fit into Mother Russia. Texas by itself could hold about 34 Israels…not to mention the over six million square miles of territory the Arabs themselves have "acquired."
How can a country like the European Union's Great Britain lecture Jews about their need for greater security in their backyard beyond the 9-mile wide armistice line yet fight a war itself to retain possession of the Falkland Islands off the coast of Argentina? When Jews dig beneath the earth in Judea and Samaria, they find Jewish history. What do the Brits find in the Falklands ( dare I mention the Scotts, Irish, and such)? Or the United States in American Samoa?
As for the United Nations…the rest of the Quartet? Spare me, please…
Just a look at what the Arab nations themselves have been up to makes any criticism of Israel a cruel joke. A mere chat with scores of millions of native, pre-Arab peoples in the region would be telling indeed on this matter.
Finally, Israel needs to think through, very carefully, its next moves. It's waffling too much on its legitimate, basic needs these days--despite some outside appearances and the intense pressure it's under. It's no stretch to suggest that the lessons of Czechoslovakia's sellout by its alleged friends for "peace for our time" at Munich in 1938 should be reviewed yet again.
The American people are fair-minded folks. They and their representatives in Congress recently overwhelmingly supported Netanyahu in his opposition to Obama's cramming the '49 armistice lines and other such travesties down Israel's throat. Even Senator Harry Reid opposed his buddy in the White House on this matter.
There are just a few key issues which Israel cannot afford to budge on. Looking at the neighborhood it lives in, how can any objective person doubt that those pertaining to its minimum security needs--given the absolute rejectionist enemies it faces--fall into that category?