Published by The Freeman Center
The Maccabean Online
Political Analysis and Commentary
All In A Day\'s News...
by Gerald A. Honigman
Along with other related articles, three covering the Middle East and
North Africa caught my eye on April 26th.
The first was written by a journalist whom I have long admired--and I
don\'t admire many in the mainstream media.
I met Tom Teepen, now a syndicated columnist for Cox News, some three
decades ago. I was visiting Cincinnati for a few days out of my Columbus
office and had assorted media, university, and other visits, lectures, and
televised debates scheduled. We have, on occasion, briefly touched base
afterwards over the years.
Tom was editorial editor, I believe, for either the Cincinnati Post or
Enquire. We spent a good deal of time reviewing the Middle East. Unlike too
many others in the liberal camp, Tom still has maintained clear vision when
it comes to Arab-Israeli politics. The real surprise was that my local
newspaper published his op-ed. After many years of batting heads with the
paper brass (first on my own, then with others), I\'m finally noticing a bit
So, Tom\'s Blaming Israel, Freelancing On Hamas--What Is Jimmy Carter
Thinking? made it into the Daytona Beach News-Journal. He recapped Mr.
Peanut\'s recent hot date with Hamas in Syria, where Carter tried his best to
make the deliberate disembowelers of Jewish babes and other innocents look
good by getting it to provide him with some foggy cover for his non-stop
assault on Israel, but Hamas--to its credit--wouldn\'t let him. Headlines
soon claimed, anyway, that Mr. Peanut achieved a breakthrough, with Hamas
offering to \'accept\' Israel.
When will they learn? Tom exposed Carter\'s nauseating comedy act.
While an allegedly \'born again\' Carter evidently doesn\'t put much value
in honesty, Hamas does. It has no--and will never have--any intention of
granting Jews in one tiny state what Arabs demand for themselves in some two
dozen others on over six million square miles of territory...including one
already created from almost 80% of the original 1920 borders of Mandatory
Palestine renamed \'Jordan.\' The new state Arabs insist on creating on the
ashes of Israel, not along side it, would be their second--not first--in
\'Palestine,\' the name the Roman Emperor Hadrian gave to Judaea after the
Jews\' second costly revolt for freedom in 133-135 C.E. He renamed the
country after the Jews\' historic enemies, the Philistines--a non-Semitic sea
people from around Crete. Contemporary Roman historians such as Tacitus, Dio
Cassius, and others wrote extensively about this themselves.
To most Arabs, the whole region is simply purely Arab patrimony...in
their own words. As for the scores of millions of non-Arabs who have been
conquered, massacred, and suppressed, Egypt\'s past Uncle Tom Copt Foreign
Minister, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, perhaps said it best...accept forced
Arabization and /or dhimmi status (like he did) or else. Copts were the
native Egyptians conquered by Arabs after the 7th century C.E. along with
As Mr. Peanut also knows, regarding the above, Hamas is no different
than the alleged moderates of Abbas\'s latter day Fatah
Arafatians--regardless of how much whitewash he, Washington, and others
throw upon them both. In order to force the Jews to play ball, a supposed
Arab good cop had to be created to counter the State Department\'s Arab bad
Fatah (with as much, if not more, blood on its hands than Hamas) is
simply more willing to play the Arabs\' well-known destruction in phases
\'diplomacy\' game vis-à-vis Israel to use petrodollar greased-international
pressure to force Israel back to its pre-\'67, 9-mile wide, armistice
line--not border--existence to set it up for a combined Arab/Iranian final
blow...something that UNSC Resolution 242 expressly stated was not to happen
in the aftermath of the 1967 War.
But, Honigman, you say, you keep repeating these same points in many of
Yes, I do.
And as long as Arabs keep on repeating their lies and distortions, and
morons or deliberate accomplices like Mr. Peanut do the same, those of us
who care must repeatedly answer them. Their approach is if they repeat a lie
often enough (and it goes unanswered), it will be accepted as truth.
Teepen did a good job with his short op-ed, especially since he has
been a fan of Carter in the past. But let me continue to pick up yet a bit
more where he left off.
With a new Presidential election approaching, I\'ll never forget the
last televised Democratic National Convention featuring \'Apartheid Israel\'
Mr. Peanut chasing \'Israel is one of the top three evils in the world\'
Michael Moore all over the convention floor. Closer soul brothers do not
exist--unless you want to throw in a more slick Obama and the company he
keeps to make a trio.
It was befitting that Carter visited Hamas in Syria, for Syria--not
\'Palestine\'--was indeed the birthplace of Hamas\'s patron saint, Sheikh
Izzedin al-Qassam (for whom its \'militant\' wing and rockets are
named )...Latakia, to be exact. Of course, back then, many if not most Arabs
in the area considered themselves to be southern Syrians, espousing one
version or another of a Greater Syria plan. \'Palestinians\' were the Jews.
Along with scores (if not hundreds) of thousands of others who poured
into the Palestine Mandate (after the break up of the over four century old
Ottoman Turkish Empire) due to its economic development by Jews, the Sheikh
joined numerous other \'native Palestinians\' who entered relatively recently
from the latter 19th century onwards from Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere in
rejecting the rights of Jews to do the same thing in any part of the \'purely
Arab patrimony,\' the Dar ul-Islam. Recall that half of Israel\'s Jews were
refugees from so-called \'Arab\' and /or Muslim lands.
Article # 2, in the same paper, quoted Mahmoud Abbas complaining that,
in his recent Washington visit, no one was talking about forcing Israel back
to the \'\'67 borders.\'
I do admit, that was a pleasant surprise.
While the State Department (and President Clinton and President Bush
off and on) has tried its best to ignore 242\'s call for the establishment of
secure and recognized borders to replace Israel\'s absurd 1949 armistice
lines (which simply marked the point where Arab invading armies were halted
upon Israel\'s rebirth in 1948), Israel, despite the weakness of Prime
Minister Olmert and his crew, has evidently made it clear that it took
President Reagan\'s words seriously when he stated on September 1, 1982:
In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10-miles wide...the bulk of
Israel\'s population within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about
to ask Israel to live that way again.
Not only were there mostly no Arab-Israeli \'borders\' back then, but the
Abbas/Arab claim that Israel is setting up settlements on Palestinian land
has the same amount of truth in it as does the \'67 border claim.
When Transjordan (army led by British officers)--created from most of
the Mandate of Palestine in 1922--attacked Israel along with a half dozen
other Arab states loaded with arms left over by the Allies in World War II
in 1948, it seized Judea and Samaria...British imperialism\'s west bank (of
the Jordan River) as opposed to the Trans(\'across\')jordanian east bank. Sir
Alec Kirkbride, the Brits\' East Bank rep, wrote extensively about this in
his A Crackle Of Thorns: Experiences In The Middle East.
The Arab land grab was illegal, only two nations recognized it. Still,
Transjordan renamed itself Jordan, since it now held both banks, and saw to
it that no Jews could reenter lands where their ancestors had lived and
owned land for thousands of years until their massacres by Arabs in the
1920s and 1930s.
At the same time, huge numbers of Arabs continued to pour in...more
Arab settlers setting up Arab settlements.
All together, so many Arabs were recent arrivals themselves into the
Palestinian Mandate that the United Nations Relief Works Agency--UNRWA--had
to adjust the very definition of the word \'refugee\' from its 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 when counting those
who fled the fighting Arabs started upon Israel\'s rebirth.
Contrary to the Arabs\' claim that these were \'occupied Palestinian
lands,\' Judea and Samaria were non-apportioned parts of the Mandate, and
leading international legal authorities such as Eugene Rostow, William
O\'Brien, and others have stressed that these areas were open to settlement
by Jew, Arab, and other residents of the Mandate alike.
How could you occupy lands taken from an illegal occupier?
The territory in question is indeed disputed...not occupied Arab lands
a la Abbas, Hamas, and Mr. Peanut.
When Israel captured Judea and Samaria in the \'67 War as a result of a
bad decision by Jordan to join Egypt\'s Nasser, Syria, and others in the
Arabs\' latest attempt upon its life, it came to hold territory of the
Mandate officially apportioned to no one...not \'Palestinian\' land. The Arabs
themselves rejected a proposed 1947 partition of the remaining 25% of the
Mandate left over after the creation of Transjordan in 1922.
While I do not advocate Israel holding on to the entire area, certainly
a reasonable territorial compromise which corrects the travesty of the \'49
armistice lines--a la 242--is a must. And Judea--land of the Jews--must
never become Judenrein again...unless Arabs are prepared to see the
one-fifth of Israel itself who are Arabs--many hostile--get the boot as
well. Such population transfers have indeed already occurred elsewhere.
Consider those involving Turks, Greeks, and Bulgars, Israel\'s Jewish
refugees from \'Arab\' lands, and India and Pakistan for starters.
Now, about those Jewish settlements Abbas complains about in that
If Jews are to return to Judea and Samaria in the context of a 242-type
territorial compromise, then how and where else will this come about if not
by establishing/reestablishing Jewish towns and so forth--\'settlements?\'
Without the latter, Israel doesn\'t get the former.
Article # 3...
The News-Journal finally gave the genocide in Darfur some of the
attention it deserves...large front page article with maps and big pictures.
Unlike the Arab-Israeli mess, however, the perpetrators might as well
have come from Mars. No where was the word Arab mentioned.
After the Arabs burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century
C.E. and forcibly Arabized millions of non-Arab peoples in the process, the
Sudan (Nubia, etc.) held out for quite some time. In other parts of North
Africa, native Jews aligned with Imazighen (\'Berbers\') to resist this
conquest as well. We\'ll revisit this a bit later.
Back in the \'60s, the first modern civil war broke out between the
non-Muslim black African south and the Arab and Arabized (remember Dr.
Boutros-Ghali\'s comments above?) north in the Sudan.
Sudanese President Nimeiry\'s stated during the slaughter of over a
half million blacks at this time (and over a million more ever since)
\'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).\'
Rudyard Kipling\'s late 19th century poem, \'The White Man\'s Burden,\'
supposedly typifies Western colonialist and imperialist attitudes towards
the Third World. If that\'s the case, then what does Nimeiry and the other
example below, expressed in the Syrian Arab Constitution of the Ba\'th,
\'...The Arab fatherland belongs to the Arabs. They alone have the right to
direct its destinies...The Arab fatherland is that part of the globe
inhabited by the Arab nation which stretches from the Taurus Mountains, the
Pacht-i-Kouh Mountains, the Gulf of Basra, the Arab Ocean, the Ethiopian
Mountains, the Sahara, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea.\'
Yet, the more recent full scale outbreak of violence in the Sudan in
the 21st century has an even more revealing twist.
While earlier bloodshed there and elsewhere could largely be seen as
modern extensions of the fourteen century-old clash between the Dar ul-Islam
and the Dar al-Harb, the one in the Sudan\'s Darfur (as those in
Arab-occupied Kurdistan and much of the rest of North Africa) is mostly
about Arab racism and chauvinism...pure and simple. You know, those folks
who like to scream about \'racist Zionism.\' Over a thousand years earlier,
this led to the overthrow of the Syrian-based Arab imperialist Umayyad
So, in Sudan\'s western region of Darfur, it\'s Arab and Arabized versus
black Africans...regardless of religion. Ditto for Arab versus Kurd,
Amazigh, and so forth. These victims are mostly Muslims.
In Sudan\'s largely non-Muslim south, it\'s a combination of both Arab
racism and the conquest of the Dar ul-Islam--as exemplified also in the
expected subjugation and dhimmitude of Egyptian Copts, Lebanon\'s Christians,
Near Eastern Assyrians, and Israel, Jew of the Nations, and home to whom
Arabs call \'their\' kilab yahud...Jew dogs.
An Amazigh (Berber) publisher friend (
http://www.north-of-africa.com/ ) recently sent me a video produced by the
highly respected Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Its contents
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XROAu1cTcQ8 showed a debate on Al-Alam TV
(Iran) on July 21, 2007over a new Berber-Jewish Friendship League set up in
Morocco. Even more recently, Morocco has outlawed the creation of an Amazigh
political party...especially since it espoused good relations with Israel.
Keep in mind that Morocco has had, relatively speaking and as an \'Arab\'
country, reasonable relations with Israel itself. Hundreds of thousands of
Israeli Jews had their roots there. But the prospect of former and current
fellow victims of forced Arabization getting together has implications for
Arabs that even the Moroccans can\'t allow. Much if not most of North Africa
is of Amazigh--not Arab--descent.
Among other comments in that debate, the Amazigh spokesman pointed out
that both Jews and Berbers predated the Arab conquest by thousands of years,
fought long and hard against that conquest, and want nothing to do with Arab
identity and forced Arabization. Keeping in mind that in modern times many
Berbers have already been killed by Arabs for less, very brave words indeed.
To sum things up, those three news articles on April 26th were loaded
with important material.
The problem is that, without further extensive explanation such as what
I\'ve attempted here, the issues are too complex for many readers to grasp.
Having said this, journalists and folks like ex-Presidents shoulder
huge responsibilities and should therefore dig much deeper before commenting
and pontificating a la Carter on such issues.
By the way, when\'s the last time anyone heard Carter comment on any of
the above non-Arab civil, political, and humanitarian issues?
If they don\'t involve Arabs, he doesn\'t want to know. And a look at the
contributors to his library and such may explain at least some of Mr.
Peanut\'s Arab-colored vision.