Independent daily Newspaper


 Old Archive RSS Feed    Advertise



 Let's Face It...The Arabs Are Correct! 

 Analysis - Opinion
  Kurd Net does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news information on this page


Let's Face It...The Arabs Are Correct  29.4.2010 
By Gerald A. Honigman, a longtime contributing writer for 

Share |

April 29, 2010

The lengthy Associated Press article, complete with two pictures, making the rounds in many newspapers on April 25th had an all-too-typical, mainstream media, anti-Israel slant.

Besides once again presenting a one-sided case against Jews building homes in Jerusalem--the capitol of Israel, whether others like it or not-- the account then proceeded to relay Yasser Arafat's hand-picked Fatah successor, Mahmoud Abbas's, demand for an imposed settlement.

To this day, Abbas and the rest of his "moderates" will openly tell you that they will never recognize a Jewish (as in Polish, Irish, Swedish, English, etc.) State of Israel--while demanding a 22nd Arab one (most having been built on conquered, non-Arab peoples' lands) for themselves. Likewise, those same moderates have called any "negotiations" (i.e., Hebrew arm-twisting) and deals with the Jews merely a "Trojan Horse."

Regarding the need for an imposed settlement...he's correct.

Prior to the Six Day War in '67, Arabs openly called for a one fell swoop solution that would end their Jew problem once and for all. June of that year changed those plans...                 

Gerald A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs. He has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated many Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world.

The subsequent Arab strategy--the destruction in phases scenario--calls for first pushing Israel back to the indefensible armistice lines (not political borders) imposed upon it in 1949 by the United Nations after Israel--at great human cost-- pushed back the armies of a half dozen Arab states which attacked it in 1948. As would become an all-too-familiar pattern, the UN sat back and watched while Israel was attacked and then only acted to limit Arab losses after Israel turned the tide.

The same thing happened in 1967.

When Israel was blockaded--a casus belli--and Arabs amassed huge numbers of men and armaments right up to the armistice lines demarcating Israeli territory, the UN observed--and then, as soon as Egypt's Nasser was preparing the final blow, simply obeyed his demand to withdraw the UN Emergency Force from Sinai and its environs as soon as he ordered this. As others noted--a fireman who withdrew the fire truck as soon as the fire approached.

No one did anything to prevent what the Arabs thought would be the next final solution...

With the clock literally ticking for Jewish survival once again, Israel, at the very last moment and after waiting for "diplomacy" to save it, and upon the Arab shelling of Jerusalem, acted preemptively. In six days, it was all over...for at least the time being. If Arabs blow themselves up by the thousands in Iraq and do likewise to each other elsewhere as well (i.e. Assad's "Hama Solution" in Syria; "Black September" in Jordan; and so forth), there's no need to doubt what they would, if they could, do to their kilab yahud, "Jew dogs." Israel was forced to act to save itself...

Much has been written about 242, the Six Day War, and its aftermath--including by this author.

I won't belabor this important topic here other than to say (yet again, and again, and again) that the final draft of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242--along with #338, supposedly the basis for peace-making--called for Israel's previous, suicidal armistice lines (which made it 9-15 miles wide, where most its population and infrastructure are located)to be replaced by real, secure, and defensible political borders. Arabs, the French, the Soviets, and others tried to have a different version of 242 passed--one which would not have held Arabs accountable for their repeated aggression. They failed...

As I have quoted many American and other leaders on this topic elsewhere, let's let these assorted statements by Great Britain's Lord Caradon, chief architect of the resolution, suffice for now. I will gladly supply the documentation to any who require it...

...We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier. We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

...It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 ( the day before hostilities erupted) because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.

The fight Israel now has with the Obama Administration is all about this.

The American President wants Israel to ignore the small bit of justice it finally received via 242--the territorial compromise absolutely essential if its Auschwitz/armistice lines were/are to be turned into secure, defensible borders instead.

Now, keep in mind that most Arabs--including those alleged latter-day Arafatian "moderates" of Fatah's Abbas--refuse to accept a Jewish State of Israel within its '49, microscopic armistice lines--let alone anything bigger.

So, the chances of me getting hit in the derriere by Haley's Comet are probably better than Arabs agreeing that anyone else but themselves is entitled to any real justice in the region.

And that brings me back to the correctness of Mahmoud Abbas's statement...

Realistically, a solution--if there is to be one-- must be imposed from the outside. It's either that or the status quo...

A territorial compromise in Judea and Samaria--known only since the last century also as the "West Bank"-- must be reached which will help to prevent Jewish residents in Tel Aviv, Haifa, and so forth from the same fate that those in Sderot, Ashkelon, and points south have suffered since Israel's unilateral retreat from Gaza years ago. Ditto for the Golan Heights, from which Syria constantly rained down death and destruction upon Jews below prior to 1967.

As I have to repeat too often, any new Arab state--their 22nd, and second, not first, within the original April 25, 1920 borders of the Mandate Of Palestine (Jordan sits on almost 80% of the total area)--must not arise at the cost the endangerment of the sole, resurrected nation of the Jews...and that is precisely what the Arabs have in mind.

Any objective look at what the "moderates" of Abbas's Fatah have to say about this will show that they intend to replace Israel--not coexist with it. And they're the alleged "good cops." The second key provision of the Saudi "Peace" (of the grave) Plan--which President Obama has repeatedly said Israel would be crazy to reject--calls for Israel to be swamped by millions of allegedly returning Arab refugees. Understand...? Get the picture...? Comprenden mis amigos...?

A reasonable territorial compromise must emerge which gives Israel somewhat better, defensible, and real borders in areas where Jews indeed have thousands of years connecting them to. Judeans--Jews--are not foreigners to Judea. Until the Arab massacres of the 1920s and 1930s, they owned land and lived there.

The area in question is tiny to begin with. In reality, there is not room for a viable, third state to be created there.

The better (but not likely, for a number of reasons) solution would be to unite the newly-imposed, Arab-controlled areas of Judea and Samaria with the state which already exists on the vast portion of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine--Jordan. It would make that new state light years more viable--and less of a threat to its Jewish neighbor. I won't get into all of the demographics,
www.ekurd.netbut let's just say that the transplanted Arab Hashemites, who rule Jordan, are more than a bit nervous about this "Black September" (back in 1970) was enough.

Yet the other solution--being shoved down Israel's throat by its "friends"--envisions Israel virtually allowing itself to be severed in half so that contiguity can be achieved between Gaza and the West Bank for that 22nd Arab state....a non-starter if ever there was one. And that's assuming the unassumable...that, in the long run, Hamas will not also take over areas now controlled by "the moderates."

Despite countless billions of dollars poured into South Viet Nam and all degrees of American support (as we are now doing for Abbas's crew), the North prevailed anyway--and largely because of similar problems the latter-day Arafatians of Abbas now face with their own people as well.

The bottom line is that Israel must get a fair territorial compromise, a la 242--regardless of whatever games Arabs play with the land that they come to rule.

If Arabs choose to go with a solution that does not see them affiliated with Jordan (the likely scenario), then this must not come expecting Jews to slit their own throats and bare the necks of their children to make the new Arab state viable.

Those Arabs that find themselves in the Jewish State will be offered full citizenship based upon good behavior.

Arab citizens in Israel right now (many hostile to the state that grants them the most freedom in the region) who feel threatened that they may wind up in a land swap, and thus coming under Arab rather than Israeli rule, are currently having nightmares about such prospects--and have openly said so.

If any serious "problems" arise with Israel's new Arab citizens, they must be booted out posthaste into their own new state.

The same way scores of millions of non-Arab Kurds, Imazhigen ("Berbers"), Copts, black Africans, Jews, Assyrians, and others have lived/live in so-called "Arab" states, a relative handful of Arabs will have to live in someone else's as well--but with far more freedom and security afforded to them than what all of those other peoples have under Arab subjugation.

Well, Folks! There 'tis...the imposed solution.

Somehow, however, I don't think that this is the one that Arabs had in mind--nor, unfortunately, is it the one that their champion in the White House thinks that he has in store has for Israel either. Let's pray that Israel will muster the strength to resist both and that the American people will also not be shy in letting their current leader know how they feel about this shameful turn of events.

Quest... may found at

Gerald A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs. He has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated many Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world. Visit his website at

By Gerald A. Honigman., April 29, 2010. You may reach the author via email at: honigman6 (at)

Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved 

Share this story:

Share |


  Kurd Net does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news information on this page


Copyright © 1998-2016 Kurd Net® . All rights reserved
All documents and images on this website are copyrighted and may not be used without the express
permission of the copyright holder.