School has been even more hectic than usual lately, so I have not had much time to spare to develop some of my latest thoughts about the Middle East. There's lots on my mind regarding Lebanon and such, far beyond what's already appeared. But that will have to wait along with my fishing trips. I'm hoping for Spring break...

The above article, however, begged a response--even if it is late in the coming.

Adding to this, later that same day I picked up a copy of Tashbih Sayyed's courageous publication, the January 7, 2005 edition of the print newspaper, Muslim World Today, to catch up a bit more. Daniel Pipes, as usual, hit the nail on the head with his article, "Arab Victories In The Language Of War." Those of us concerned about Israel getting a fair hearing on the world scene have long complained about that hasbara thing. Somehow, Israel just can't seem to get its message across.

The clincher next came across my desk. There, in Israel National News/Arutz Sheva on March 16th, appeared

"Bush Tells Press: 'Israel Must Withdraw From Settlements.'" That was it.

The subsequent article below became sort of a family affair. It started out in a doctor's office reading about "extremist Jews" in a settlement named after the same wise and beautiful lady my own oldest daughter is named in part for--King David's wife, Avigail. And it was written the day afterwards in another doctor's office while waiting for my wife's medical procedure to be completed. So, here it goes...

Time has a long history of an anti-Israel slant. I say this not expecting them to be pro-Israel--just fair. I switched to their competitors a long time ago because of this...kind of like comparing Fox News coverage of Arab-Israeli issues to CNN, NPR, or even the BBC.

Now, given different realities, I could have agreed with much of what that particular Time article had to say. Avigail, after all, while established on a hilltop with important Jewish history attached to the valley below, was still one of those unauthorized settlements. Yet, who authorized the countless settlements of the bulk of the "West Bank's" Arab population--most of whom were newcomers themselves into the Mandate of Palestine? The United Nations' imposed armistice lines, ending the '48 fighting started when a half dozen Arab states invaded a reborn Israel, and artificially drew those lines which subsequently made unapportioned--not Arab--lands of Judea, Samaria (only in this past century known as the West Bank), and elsewhere off limits to Jews. Jews owned land and lived in those lands until there massacres by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s.

Still, Avigail is one of those settlements not endorsed by the Israeli government. It's population is apparently made up of mostly young, determined Jews with a vision of Israel unbetrayed and at least fairly intact and defensible. They also tend to not mince words on any of this and consider others who would take risks with the well-being of their long-awaited resurrected State as being "the enemy"--Jew or otherwise--to be dealt with accordingly.

While I disagreed with Rabin's concessions to Arafat (undoubtedly under immense pressure--as Sharon is now--from his American friends), I certainly did not want to see him killed. Time points out that it was another extremist Jew, Yigal Amir, who carried out Rabin's assassination.

Although I do not endorse violence over these differences of opinion, I too agree that Israelis and the rest of us who care have a right to demand defensible borders for Israel and to demand that security concerns of the sole, miniscule Jewish State take priority over those of any emerging  22nd state for Arabs, their second--not first--one in Palestine.

I don't care how often I repeat it. I will do so over and over again...

Jordan was created in 1922 out of the original April 25, 1920 borders of the Palestinian Mandate as a gift from the British to their Hashemite Arab allies in World War I. This is not "Zionist propaganda." Even without the emerging second state, Arabs already thus hold some 80% of "Palestine." For a variety of reasons, this needs to be repeated over and over and over...whether some like it or not. Israel should not be forced to return to its pre-'67, 9-mile wide, rump state status so that Arabs can get the first part of all that they want in what's left of "Palestine." All of Israel proper is the openly admitted second part of this wish list. Together they make up the well-known destruction in stages plan of the Arabs. So, short of violence, Israelis and others have a right to do all in their power to try to prevent this injustice from happening.

President Bush, back in April 2004, came close to saying the same thing. It was truly a pregnant moment in terms of Arab-Israeli politics. He stated before the whole world that Israel should not be expected to return to the '49 armistice lines (his own words) and should not be expected to be overwhelmed by an alleged "return" of millions of Arab refugees. If Arabs finally understood that, as in other conflicts, a territorial compromise would have to be arrived at here as well, then perhaps--while still a long shot--they would finally get serious about ending their perpetual war with the Jews. But that was before the November election.

Dubya now appears, unfortunately, to have been playing some pre-election politics to solidify his key Evangelical Christian supporters and win over some more Jews in what--back then at least--had promised to be a close election. It worked. I voted for him this time. But now that he's in, and with little or nothing to lose since he can't run again, it seems that his family's oil ties, the influence of former Secretary of State "_ _ _ _ the Jews they don't vote for us anyway" James Baker (Dubya's special Middle East envoy), and a heavily Arabist State Department are converging to sweep Israel's concerns under the rug. I truly say this more in sorrow than in anger.

These days, instead, we get a constant barrage of statements from both the President and his new Secretary of State that Arab state #22 must be no bantustan and must have contiguity. Neither of them seem to care about what this means for the sole, microscopic state of the Jews. Look at a map and, if you can manage to find Israel without a magnifying glass, try connecting Gaza to the West Bank--as just one example. Just recently, as noted above, it was reported that Dubya said "...Israel must withdraw from the settlements, there must be contiguity for a Palestinian State--into which (it) can grow." His spokesman supposedly offered a clarifying statement soon afterwards, saying that Dubya meant to say unauthorized outposts (like Time's Avigail)--not settlements.

When considered in light of the President's evident deliberate amnesia regarding the public letter he gave to Sharon last April, which the latter then used to justify his unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, this amounts to nothing less than a sellout of his former position. Remember the ads he ran against John Kerry for doing such things? This is the same guy who supposedly once noted that some Texas driveways were longer than the the width of the State of Israel is at its vulnerable waist, where most of its population and industry are located. And for this all that the Jews can hope for is a temporary cease fire--a hudna--not "peace." This is the best Arab "moderates" like Mahmoud Abbas offer, while promising to never give up on their demand to destroy Israel democratically (their own words) by insisting on a "right of return" of millions of so-called Arab refugees--most of whom never lived in "Palestine." Keep in mind that Abbas is now the darling of the West--including Dubya and Condy.

Shame on any and all who would shove this down Israel's throat.

Because of this, fair-minded people everywhere now have a democratic obligation to speak up and let their respective powers that be know clearly how they feel. There's no such thing as perfect justice anywhere among the realm of man. And the relative variety does not demand suicidal concessions from the Jews' so that Arabs can have yet another state at somebody else's expense.

Arabs and other Muslims have continuously engaged in violently spreading the Dar ul-Islam far and wide at the expense of the Dar al-Harb (all lands not yet converted and conquered) over the centuries. Not long ago, the Kosovo War was largely about this and had been going on (off again, on again) since the days of Stefan Dusan over six centuries ago. The Arab genocide of Blacks in the Sudan, subjugation of native, mostly non-Arab Copts in Egypt, Lebanese Civil War, Arab-Israeli conflict, etc., etc., and so forth can largely be explained in these terms as well. Add to this ethnic Arab racist chauvinism, and the subjugation of Muslim Berbers, Kurds, and other peoples also becomes more understandable.

So, given the above, how is it that Time magazine and others of its ilk focus, instead, on "religious extremist Jews" wanting to secure parts of historic Israel (Judea and Samaria) to Israel proper, giving it a few more miles of strategic buffer in the highlands--actions permitted, by the way, by Resolution #242 itself in its call for the creation of secure and recognized borders to replace Israel's pre-'67 Auschwitz/armistice lines?

Where is the sense of balance here?

Have those Avigail "extremists" ever blown up Arab buses, restaurants, schools and the like? Have they deliberately targeted and disemboweled Arab children? Have they burst into Arab homes and murdered Arab families? Have they denied Arabs the right to have almost two dozen states carved out of mostly non-Arab peoples' lands? Have they beheaded Arabs and played with their body parts?

Since we all know the answers here--and know that Arabs do the above to Jews--then why focus on the Jews' alleged extremism when Arab barbarity is an almost daily occurrence? 

Other nations (America included) have conquered, manipulated, acquired, and whatever other lands in the name of their own national security interests, but far more vulnerable Jews are told they must forsake these same concerns on lands that they--unlike others--actually have historical ties to and that are necessary to add a bit more space in critical areas separating them from those who still desire to butcher their kids.

America--Israel's best friend--has even demanded that Israel's security fence become virtually useless in defending its major airport, Ben-Gurion, by focusing more on prospective Arab state #22's "inconveniences" than on Israel's right to protect its citizens. Friends are not supposed to treat friends this way. And gaining another Arab friend should not come at the expense of shafting the one Jewish one.

Daniel Pipes' article dealt with Arab victories in the war of words.

Given that the very meanings of words key to this conflict--like refugees, settlers (see my own widely-published articles on this), borders, cycle of violence, and such--have been distorted, contorted, and so forth, still--as Daniel knows well--the problem regarding "words" is even far worse than he writes.

     Undoubtedly, billions of words have been expended by those of us who fight for Israel being able to get a fair hearing on the world arena of public opinion. Many brilliant articles, books, essays, and such have been written and read.

So the real question then becomes how you get people to listen, pay attention, digest, and actually deal with all of those sound refutations of the Arabs' own positions.

What new words, refutations, clarifications, and so forth can we utilize in trying to make our points?

All of this only works to drive ourselves nuts.

Publishers (at least some) demand new verbiage to address the issues. Yet the basics of the Arab-Israeli conflict remain as simple as they were well over a half century ago. New "news," words, and the like won't change any of this. Arabs demand full and sole rights over yet another non-Arab people in the Middle East and North Africa--what they claim as "purely Arab patrimony." So, not only is there nothing new here, this story is well over a millennium old, and in the modern age of nationalism, it became even more typical. The key arguments and issues have not and will not change.

Words, unfortunately, can only affect those who base their decisions and actions on reason.

Those nations now courting the favor of some one billion Arabs and other Muslims (many of whom feel the need to "prove" themselves to the Arab progenitors of Islam by being more anti-Israel than the Arabs themselves) use other considerations in determining their national policies. Many add a history of anti-Semitism to this mix.

While this is not to say that we are to give up in trying to present our points of view in the war of words (after all, there is a lot of ignorance out there, and perhaps the minds we may change may indeed be influential ones), it is to say that, given all the above, at least some of the decades' old self criticism we have indulged in regarding getting the message out--hasbara--was and is really undeserved.

Copyright by Gerald A. Honigman