Post-Gaza,"No Friends...Just Interests"

No Friends...Just Interests

By Gerald A. Honigman

But is it not absurd to expect that those non-friends will agree to slit their own throats...again?

Like millions of others, I watched on television as Israeli police and troops uprooted fellow Jews from Gaza...Jews uprooting Jews from non-apportioned lands of the Mandate that were open to settlement for all of the Mandate's peoples...Jews, Arabs, and others as well. Jewish settlements were not established on "Arab" land, and the majority of the land's alleged "native Palestinians" migrated into the Mandate only relatively recently themselves...from the 19th century onwards.

In account after account in print, radio, and television reporting, it was proclaimed that Israel occupied Gaza only after the 1967 War. Not only were thousands of years of Jewish history ignored, but none of those accounts explained Gaza's prior status before then...as an Egyptian occupied entity since the latter's attack on Israel's rebirth in 1948, along with Transjordan's acquisition of Judea and Samaria--the "West Bank"--at the same time. The concessions Israel now makes in Gaza are made over a territory which has been repeatedly used since the days of the Pharaohs as an invasion route into Israel proper. Egypt's modern Pharaohs used Gaza for this as well.

Like many others, I have also had mixed feelings about all of this.

But what has upset me the most--even more than seeing a Jewish lady crying for what she called the lack of the world's "sympathy" (is that really what we want?)--is that I know in my heart of hearts that this is just an exercise in futility in terms of reaching an accommodation with the Arabs for a true peace. The latter have never claimed this as their intent. On the contrary, even the "moderates" continuously state their intent to force Israel--with America doing the arm twisting--back to its 1949 nine-mile wide armistice line, rump state status. And after this, they demand Israel kill itself by absorbing millions of alleged "returning" Arab refugees.

So, the painful concessions Jews now make in Gaza are simply perceived as a victory by their enemies in the on-going war against Israel's very existence.

But for Jews and other fair-minded people who watched those heartrending scenes played out on television, the messages of the Gaza tragedy have been etched forever in our psyches.

The boiling point is fast approaching, and when the Arabs--unfortunately, now apparently also with Dubya's and the American State Department's support--predictably ignore Gaza as merely yesterday's concessions and insist on nothing less than Israel totally caving in to all of the rest of their murderous demands as well, Israel will finally know what it must do...and act upon it. This will mean a confrontation with most of the rest of the world which, as has been known for quite some time, couldn't care less if the Jew of the Nations disappeared. Regardless, Israel must act forcefully and decisively anyway.

Sadly, there are some very stark realities at play here which are now once again coming to the front burner. Let's take a closer look...

Lord Palmerston, mid-19th century British Prime Minister, commented that nations have no permanent friends, just interests.

While cold and calculating, this statement is largely correct. Those non-friends, however, also have their own interests...

For the resurrected Jew of the Nations, those interests are, quite literally, a matter of survival.

So, when others behave as Lord Palmerston suggested, Israel has no choice--unless it chooses to once again vanish--to do what it must do...in its own interests, and regardless of the (probably short term) consequences.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently visited Israel and abruptly made one demand after the other for unilateral Israeli concessions after Gaza. She whitewashed Abbas' repeated failures at leadership (blaming the Jews themselves for it) and meeting the Arabs' own requirements to deal with terror vis-à-vis the roadmap.

Condi's hypocritical, self-centered demands are despised by the vast majority of Americans, as polls continuously illustrate. Speaking out against her now is akin to opposing her predecessors' demands in the '40's that the Jews remain perpetual stateless victims. This was done in the wake of the State Department's refusal to allow Jews fleeing Hitler sanctuary here. And a policy which also allowed for the bombing of Auschwitz' industrial complex while not wasting any bombs on the rail lines leading to or the death camps themselves.

The stakes today are indeed once again that high. Regardless of Palmerston's remarks, America should try its best to rise above such immoral behavior.

Bullying the Jews is nothing new. The American State Department's bullying the Jews is legendary.

As is well known by now, it fought against Israel's very existence in 1948. Remember the no friends, just interests thing again. Any lukewarm support which came afterwards was indeed given grudgingly. More often than not, such things as assigning moral equivalence to Israel's attempt to protect itself from those who deliberately disembowel its kids and the disembowelers themselves, typify the Foggy approach to justice between Arab and Jew (Arab and Kurd, and so forth) in the Middle East.

The "Arab" world is large, and there's lots of money to be made by those who align themselves with it while in and out of office...just ask former Secretary of State James Baker, whose law firm represents the Saudis. His partner is the American ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Cap Weinberger and numerous others before and after him passing through the lucrative revolving doors of businesses like the Bechtel Corporation and government positions have made out this way as well. And the Bush family itself is not immune to this powerful influence. Numerous business ventures tie the presidential family to Arab oil money.

While everyone is entitled to make a buck, it should not be at the expense of the very existence of others.

So, I guess we should not be shocked that, among other demands Condi made, she recently insisted that the Jews themselves arm Abbas and his fellow alleged Arafatian moderates.

She should have been tossed out on her derriere.

If most Americans knew what was being done in their name they'd be outraged.

The second Abu in charge at the P.A., Ahmed Qurei', recently was quoted as saying today Gaza, tomorrow Jerusalem. Earlier he refused to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. Both Abus openly proclaim that Israel must disappear and agree to be swamped and swallowed up by millions of jihadist-raised, allegedly "returning" Arab refugees...shades of that now deceased earlier alleged Arab "moderate," Faisal al-Husseini, who called for a purely Arab state from the River to the Sea. For all, any temporary dealings with the Jews is to be designed merely as a Trojan Horse. Abbas & Co. openly admit that they differ only with the timing and tactics of the Hamas/Islamic Jihad half of their good cop/bad cop team...not the overall strategy. Israel is to vanish in all of their plans.

As per Condi's demands, Israel was pressured to do such things as arming those who would destroy it before during the Oslo fiasco. Then, as predictably in the future, the more Israel gave into American pressure, the more it bled.

If the State Department wants Abbas' boys armed, let it have America do it itself. We supply other Arabs--with Israel in their sights--with billions of dollars of state-of-the-art weaponry.

So, what's the Foggy motive here, evidently agreed to by Dubya? To not have America itself blamed when those arms predictably kill yet more Jews?

Much has been written about the controversy over the Gaza withdrawal. But perhaps the worst aspect of it--and there are many problems--was Dubya's apparent turn around after his reelection. I've written extensively about this previously, so I won't get into too much detail here. But it's worth noting, again, that the alleged quid-pro-quo Sharon got in April 2004 regarding Israel not having to return elsewhere to the 1949, U.N.-imposed armistice lines--which made it, among other things, a microscopic nine-miles wide at its vulnerable waist--has now vanished. Dubya now states that any change in those lines must first have the approval of the Arabs themselves. The latter reject a nine-mile wide Israel. Forget about anything bigger.

I guess America should have asked permission of Mexico before it grabbed California and the American southwest. Etc., etc., and so forth. If there's a difference here, it's that the disputed lands in question for Israel have thousands of years of Jewish history and land ownership associated with it. America simply pulled a land grab to further its manifest destiny. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for a united America...but can the hypocrisy, please.

So, it comes down, unfortunately, to this.

While Israel has tried its best to reach a just compromise with its Arab enemies, this can't be reached with folks who proclaim the entire region as purely Arab patrimony--at the expense of scores of millions of others. Add to this a Dar ul Islam vs. Dar al-Harb worldview, and Israel's predicament should be obvious. Abbas, Qurei', and so forth fit right into this mold. Not to mention Hamas. And at least the latter is honest.

The State Department has spent decades undermining both the deliberate intent and language of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, the alleged post-'67 War guideline for peacemaking between Arab and Jew.

Culminating in the current pressures being exerted on Israel, the Foggy folks have played ball with the Arabs' own destruction in phases plans. Condi is simply the latest to do so--but at an especially dangerous time.

After the '67 War, the first stage of the latter called for forcing Israel's return to the suicidal armistice lines imposed in 1949, after the Arabs' invasion of the nascent Jewish State. Then, as repeatedly afterwards, the United Nations got involved with Arab aggression only after the Jews turned the tide. It stepped in to minimize Arab losses, not to halt their attacks. 242 was designed to prevent this by insisting that any post-'67 Israeli withdrawal was to be made in the context of true peace and was to made to secure and recognized borders, not the previously vulnerable armistice lines. Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg, and other architects of that Resolution have written extensively about this--for any doubters out there.

So, since American foreign policy--now apparently with Dubya's approval--intends to once again unabashedly embrace Palmerston, Israel must do what it must do.

An Israeli leadership must emerge which will finally act in its own nation's and people's vital interests.

Israel is not a 3,000-mile wide powerhouse with oceans separating it from its enemies and with three hundred million citizens. One Jew killed is the equivalent to sixty American losses.

Unlike its best friend, it doesn't expect to topple unfriendly governments or acquire territories thousands of miles away from home in the name of its own national security interests. But it has a right to demand a say in what's to emerge in its own very backyard. And it has a right to demand a reasonable territorial compromise in disputed--not "purely Arab"--lands so that it can get the buffer promised by 242.

Asking the sole state of the Jews, for example, to virtually slice itself in half so that the Arabs' 22nd state can have better contiguity falls into the same category as asking the Jews to arm their enemies. It is absurd and unreasonable...proving Palmerston's assertion yet again.

It is thus solely up to Israel's leaders themselves to demand that any additional, new state for Arabs--created in an area in which there really is no room for one--must not come at the expense of the Jews' own minimal security needs. Purely Arab Jordan already exists on some 80% of the original April 25, 1920 borders of the Palestine Mandate.

After the painful Gaza withdrawal--which perhaps could have been justified had Israel received the territorial compromises it needs elsewhere--it will be up to Israel itself to deal effectively with what comes next...regardless of all of the feathers it will undoubtedly ruffle.

Israel must forget about tit-for-tat-type responses against those who commit acts that other nations habitually go to war over. Israel must play to win...its very life is at stake.

Further Arab terror must be answered by massive Israeli retaliation from above...as America utilizes its own Powell Doctrine against its own enemies. And Dubya's own words--that those who harbor terrorists will share in their fate--must be heeded by the Jews as well. Any collateral damage (as America calls it when it kills non-combatants in its own fights) will be brought on by the Arabs' own actions...and this, by the way, is acknowledged by the Geneva Conventions themselves. When the U.N. screams, the Jews need to tell it to drop dead and consider withdrawing...not from the territories it deems necessary to survive, but from the U.N. itself.

I wish there was a better way, but there isn't.

Relatively few Arabs will ever acknowledge Israel's (one half of whose Jews were refugees themselves from the "Arab" world) right to exist. Egypt's Sadat made the cold peace decades ago because he recognized that the cost of Israel's destruction would be too high.

But the new generation of Arabs have no such memories. Trading the targeted killings of a dozen Arab murderers for a dozen Jews will not teach the necessary lessons. Hamas, for example, has never been dealt with as it should.

When Israel withdraws from Gaza, the Arabs' feet must be held to the fire. Any aggression from the latter must be treated as the act of war that it is and dealt with accordingly...gloves off, for real--not just words.

As America did in Fallujah, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, bombers, fighter bombers, and such must answer terror. Sadat realized that for every Jew killed, thousands of Arabs also met their heavenly reward, along with massive economic destruction. The result was Camp David.

The Arafatian/Hamas team has yet to have to come to grips with this. Neither will ever concede Jewish rights in the neighborhood. So, Israel must at least attempt to teach both of them the same lessons Sadat eventually learned: Jewish blood will come at exponentially higher prices to Arabs who spill it. And with each new act of Arab barbarity, the cost must increase even further.

Sorry...but nice guys finish last when alleged "peace partners" still plot their destruction.

The State Department, with Dubya's approval (the guy who got my vote this time), will likely cut off aid if Israel acts to save itself. Israel must do what any other nation must do to thrive as well as to survive anyway.

It won't be the first time that Israel was threatened this way. After all, Jews--whether as individuals or as the Jew of the Nations--are expected to be used to double standards and playing the role as the world's perpetual victim by now. Indeed, the State Department tries to pretend that it's in the Jews' own interests to follow their Palmerstonian advice.

Many, many millions of red-blooded Americans, however, will hold the politicians and Foggy Arabists to account if Israel is forced by Big Brother to become a reincarnated, 1938 Czechoslovakia, whereby the latter was sold out by its alleged friends at Munich for the sake of "peace." Dubya's folks get very upset when this analogy is even mentioned. I don't blame them...it's right on target. But my prediction is that any cut off of aid will backfire on those who attempt it.

Regardless of the cost, Israel must draw its own lines in the sand regarding the essentials of its existence.

And it must clearly state the obvious to those who act as if they have no friends...just interests.

Comment on this article using the "Post Reply" button