May 18, 2003

In light of repeated acts of megabarbarism deliberately directed against Israeli innocents (many proudly claimed by Arafat's boys' own al-Aqsa affiliate), it's time to take a closer look at some of the underlying issues that have been virtually ignored up until now. Consider the following, for starters...

Pick your paper...as diverse as the Washington Post or the Daytona Beach News-Journal. Chances are pretty good that editors and columnists are ready to give advice or offer condemnation on the matter.

The Post's Richard Cohen and many of his colleagues elsewhere don't like Arik Sharon very much, especially those settlements he insists upon. The News-Journal's editorialist Pierre Tristam--current point man for the paper's own slant--writes such objective essays as "Barbarism Under Israel's Boot." Having their own bully pulpits, more often than not, attempts at meaningful response are then suppressed...those permitted usually appearing long after the original extensive attacks have had a chance to be digested and absorbed as "truth" by readers.

While living in the safety and comfort of their own homes and having to travel farther to work than the width of Israel by it's pre-'67, 1949 U.N.-imposed armistice lines, such folks as these in the media, academia, and--alas--too often in our own State Department seem to prefer a breed of Jew that bares his neck much easier. But, then again, most of them complained about Ehud Barak as well, even though, had Arabs agreed to have a state alongside Israel instead of in place of it under his watch, virtually all of those settlements complained about would have been history by now.
Not to mention the fact that when Sharon himself believed Israel had a true partner for peace, he dismantled settlements in Sinai for Menachem Begin in order to achieve peace with Egypt...something totally ignored by the Richard Cohens, Molly Moores, etc. And Sharon would do it again for the sake of real peace for his people, not the peace of the grave. So, this all begs the question: Why is there never an attempt, in the name of fair journalism, to determine why those Jews are so adamant on this issue..

As a concession to the new "roadmap," it has been reported that Arafat and his Holocaust-denying Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas are seeking to limit Arab disembowelment and incineration of Jews to "just" the West Bank and Gaza. They will thus supposedly show the world that they are only against occupation and settlers, not Israel itself. A mere look, however, at the material in their own websites, textbooks, etc. soon explains what "occupied" territory really means...Tel Aviv as well as Hebron. And this is even more so for the Hamas crew. It's recently been reported that the United States banned the Baath Party in Iraq. Regardless of one's thoughts on this, Hamas openly declares that no Israel, regardless of size, has a right to exist...so what should a much more vulnerable Israel now insist upon?

For those without a grasp of history, both recent and a bit farther back, this ploy focusing on occupation and settlements will work. And it will do so for those who simply like to believe Israel is the devil incarnate as well. Unfortunately, it also seems to work with a media afflicted too often with a severe case of amnesia on such issues. The reality is that this gesture is just another staged fiction for, at best, a naive West.

Just who is a "settler" in the Middle East? Of course, Arabs, Cohen, & Co. point to Jews. So, unless the "West Bank" is ethnically cleansed of the Jewish presence, as the fiction goes, there will be no chance for peace. The press constantly supports this position. Countless editorials and columns have appeared.

Consider, as just one other blatant example, the November 16, 2002 AP report by Nasser Shiyoukhi. Listen to his description of the situation in Hebron: "The Muslims here are among the most devout and the Jewish settlers among the most radical." Notice the adjectives. Unlike the Arabs, the Jews - who know that they are risking their lives living among hostile Arabs but do so anyway for deep religious conviction and faith - are not described as "devout," a positive concept, but are labeled, instead, as being "radical," with negative connotations. Yet the Tomb of the Patriarchs was sacred to Jews for over two thousand years before the Prophet of Islam ever lived and before the vast majority of Arabs ever knew that the Hebrew Patriarch, Abraham, even existed. The same folks who claim that there was no Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem (Arafat calls it Buraq's Mount in honor of Muhammad's winged horse who supposedly took him on a flight to the holy site) deny any Jewish connections to Hebron as well.

Now for a dose of reality... There's very good evidence that Arafat was born in Egypt. Scores of thousands of other Arabs came from Egypt earlier in the 19th century with Muhammad Ali's armies and, like Arafat, settled in Palestine. During the mandatory period after World War I, the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission recorded additional scores of thousands of Egyptian, Syrian, and other Arabs entering into Palestine and settling there. Hamas' patron saint, Sheikh Izzadin al-Qassam, for whom its militant wing (the folks who blow up the teen clubs, pizzerias, etc.) was named, was from Aleppo, Syria. He too settled in Palestine. It is estimated that for each one of these people who were recorded, many others crossed the border under cover of darkness to enter into one of the few areas in the region where any economic development was going on because of the influx of Jewish capital. These folks later became known as "native Palestinians." While this is not to say that there were not native Arabs also living in Palestine, it is to say that many if not most of these folks were also newcomers - settlers - themselves. Many of the villages set up in the West Bank and elsewhere were settlements established by Arab settlers. And there were Jews whose families never left Israel/Judaea/Palestine as well over the centuries, despite the tragedies of the Roman Wars, forced conversions of the Byzantines, the Diaspora, Crusades, etc.

So, why is it acceptable to Cohen, Tristam, and--at best--their fellow amnesiacs for Arabs from the surrounding lands to settle in Palestine, but not for Israel's Jews, half of whom were refugees themselves from Arab/Muslim lands? They're the other side of the refugee coin nobody talks
about.

Jews owned land and lived in Judea/Samaria until they were massacred by Arabs in the 1920s. Those lands weren't known as the "West Bank" until British imperialism made its presence there in the 20th century and purely Arab Transjordan - created itself in 1922 from 80% of the Mandate for Palestine Britain received on April 25, 1920 - annexed the "west bank" of the Jordan River after the 1948 fighting. Saying Jews have no rights in places like Hebron is like claiming that if China conquers the Vatican, then Catholics will no longer have rights there. Again, the world would not know of the significance of places like Hebron if not for the Holy Scriptures of the Jews. If one million Arabs can live as citizens without fear in Israel, then why is it that Arabs insist that lands where both peoples have historical ties must be made Judenrein?

UN Resolution #242 emerged in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It did not call for Israel to return to those suicidal, pre-'67 armistice lines. Among other things, those lines had made Israel a mere 9-miles wide, a constant temptation to its enemies..

Notice, please, that the vast majority of the settlements are built on strategic high ground areas designed to provide precisely what Israel is entitled to under Resolution #242... a slightly increased buffer from those who would destroy it. Furthermore, any eventual Israeli withdrawal was to be linked to the establishment of "secure and recognized borders" to replace those fragile lines. Many of those now demanding Israel to forsake this have conquered nations and acquired territories hundreds or thousands of miles away from home in the name of their own national security interests.

Legal experts such as William O'Brien, Eugene Rostow, and others have repeatedly stated that the non-apportioned areas (the West Bank in particular) of the Palestinian Mandate were open to settlement by all residents of the Mandate, not just Arabs. That Arabs disagree is not a shock. They don't believe Jews have rights in any part of Israel. Keep in mind that most of the 22 so-called "Arab" states were themselves conquered and forcibly Arabized from non-Arab peoples like Berbers, Copts, Kurds, Black Africans, etc.

Lastly, at Camp David 2000 and Taba, Barak's Israel offered to end the occupation. 97% of the territories, half of Jerusalem, a $33 billion fund, etc. were offered to Arafat in a contiguous state, not disconnected cantons, as Arab spin doctors now claim. Dennis Ross was there as U.S. chief negotiator and confirmed all of this. I'll take his word over Arafat's. So much for occupation being the cause of the problem.

Unfortunately, the predominant Arab "vision of peace" still has no room for a permanent Israel. Some have made a tactical decision to play the game to win as much concessions diplomatically from Israel as possible...making their end goal that much easier to achieve.

Arafat and others speak of the "peace of the Quraysh." The Quraysh were a pagan tribe with whom the Muslim Prophet, Muhammad, made a temporary peace with until he gained enough strength to deal the final blow. Even the PLO's late model moderate, Faisal Husseini, called for a purely Arab Palestine "from the River to the Sea."

If one is really interested in seeing what Arab thinking is in these regards, all that is required is an online visit to the Palestinian Authority websites, or a look at its textbooks, maps, insignias and such. There is no Israel present. And these are the "good cops." Go to the Hamas site and then understand why the sole, miniscule state of the Jews cannot be expected to commit national suicide so that Arabs can obtain their 23rd state - and second one in Palestine.