What is this? The senior prom?
Posted on 09/18/2002 5:33:54 AM PDT by BenF
The Arab nations continue to whine and complain that America has unfairly deprived them of their victory over Israel since 1948. Somehow, in their fertile imagination where Arabs wander about in their fantasy land, they believe they are not to blame for losing six wars of intended annihilation to their hated enemy, the Jews. They claim that "It wasn't the Jews who met each attack with courage and fighting skills that beat them on the field of battle." Clearly, 'they' didn't lose to the despised Jews who, for centuries the Arab Muslims had designated as lowly habitants of most Arab lands. If it wasn't the Jews, who in the Arabs' fables and imagination were weak and cowardly, it must have been America, who they call "The Great Satan" that defeated them.
So, the Arabs, as is their custom, invented new realities and history. They, the Arabs, were not fighting a small number of Jews, who sent them running from the field of battle. It was those dastardly Americans. Being beaten by a Superpower is acceptable to their testicle-driven pride and, therefore, there is no shame in being beaten by a Superpower.
Note! At this point a bit of reality and history is called for. Not only did the Americans not assist Israel in 1948 but America, along with Europe, embargoed arms shipments to Israel. She had to scrounge the junkyards of Europe to accumulate obsolete arms that dated back often to WWI and the cast-offs of WWII. It was long after that Israel was allowed to "buy" arms, using monies contributed by Jews in America. The Jews of Europe, having been killed off by Hitler's Nazis who were assisted by most European nations, could not contribute. Any property the survivors might have previously owned, had been confiscated by the occupying Nazis and their European collaborators. Their assets had been grabbed by Hitler, the French, the Swiss, the Ukrainians - etc. Well, it's all there in the well-researched books about WWII.
So, the walking skeletons who came out of the graveyards of Europe and made it past the British blockade to Palestine supplemented the earlier Jewish pioneers, bringing the Jewish population in 1948 to some 600,000. This became the rag-tag army who were issued a vintage rifle, allowed to fire 3 bullets for training and sent to fight the converging armies from 7 Arab countries - Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. These armies were all well-trained and well-armed by the British or French. The always perfidious Brits left their Taggart Forts and ammunition to the Arabs upon their departure for England. The Arabs met this ghostly army of Jewish survivors and were driven back in shock by the Jews. The Arabs never forgot this humiliating loss. They call it 'Nakba', the catastrophe - which it was for them, both physically and psychologically. This was a loss to their testicle-driven manhood and a loss to their vaunted pride in the fertile imagination of their invincibility.
Later, the Jews from Arab countries were evicted from homes and businesses with their lineage going back thousands of years. They lived in tent camps but, unlike Arab refugees, the Jews of Israel accepted their own people and they were eventually absorbed by a new country which had no money, no external resources and few natural resources except their own brains, grit and faith. The Arab refugees were kept in deliberate squalor and never allowed citizenship in the Arab countries - although they claimed a spurious brotherhood.
As history unfolds, there were more attacks and frequent Terrorism in between the six actual wars. The Arabs were beaten again and again, even more soundly. The Jewish people, who had not been warriors since ancient times, re-learned the arts of war. They often built their own arms when they were denied arms from the Western nations who were more concerned with sucking up to Arab oil then the survival of the tiny Jewish State.
In each war that Israel won, the Americans, Europeans and the Soviets would step in to insure that there was no final surrender by the Arabs. After all, how could the lowly Jews force the Arab world to its knees in a military victory?! Israel was time and again forbidden the fruits of victory to secure her sovereignty. Israel could not be allowed to be victorious as America was when she and her Allies defeated Germany and Japan, imposing a just and secure peace. Israel was never to be permitted such a victory or a full peace with a defeated enemy. Even now, the world screams when Israel dares to defeat Arafat's Terrorists and impose a peace which only power can maintain.
History continued to stumble on, with the Arabs hating the Jews, the Americans and the ever-present sniveling Europeans. What the Arabs could not win on the battlefield, they tried to win through Terror. Out of the Arab nations came their proxies: Iran sponsors Hezb'Allah in Lebanon under Syrian control. Syria hosts at least 10-12 Terror organizations. Egypt founded the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) in 1964 - well before Israel had liberated Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan Heights and that part of Jerusalem which Jordan had occupied for 19 years. Other Terror organizations, like Al Qaeda out of Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Afghanistan - with some from Iraq -were fostered and trained in various Arab countries. The Soviet Union also ran immense Terrorist training camps, a fact exposed to the incredulous world during the First Yonatan Conference Against Terrorism in 1979.
Our U.S. State Department covered up these facts that their Arab 'allies', Eg., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc., were incubators for Terrorists. Rogue nations such as Iran, Syria, Iraq were more open in their display of hatred for Christian America and all non-Muslims. The Arabs called Israel "The Little Satan" and America "The Great Satan". They had a few pertinent, folksy sayings, like "First the Saturday people; then the Sunday people" and "Kiss the hand of your enemy until you can cut it off." These indicate the deep, enduring roots of the enmity that led to the 9/11.
Within days after 9/11, the FBI/CIA knew the perpetrators as 15 Saudi Arabians and 4 Egyptians, organized by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi out of Sudan but then based in Afghanistan. So, America destroyed Afghanistan and the obvious Taliban Terror structure - leaving the warlords in control of their various areas and whatever Terrorists who could escape to the mountains or other countries - there to hide until opportunity calls them again for murder. They also thrive in the Free West, especially America, where they have set up "sleeper cells" awaiting their master Terrorists' calls for mega-attacks against their host countries.
Today, the radical Islamic Fundamentalists continue to turn history on its head, claiming that they only took up arms because it was the West, especially Israel and America, who attacked them, that is, who attacked Islam first. Arabs, when they revise history do not believe they are lying. The alteration of facts to suit their fantasies is simply a natural expression and custom of the way they see the world. A lie or a re-telling of the story is 'not a lie' but merely a 'new truth'. This is why the West cannot ever depend upon any agreement made with an Arab country. Everything is written on the sand which is quickly erased by the blowing wind and the laws of strict Islam.
When you hear an Arab Muslim say he is 'merely defending himself (or his country), be assured that he has already attacked his victim - particularly if he has lost the battle.
When you hear the Arab/Muslim nations bleat about why they are backward and poor, they blame America for their shortcomings. Be assured no one but their own leaders have whipped them down into the dirt.
The Lie is the Arab Muslims' best tool to explain defeat or excuse his planned attack against his enemies. As Carl Jung observed, the aggressor first blames his victim for planning to attack so that he can attack - with the claim that he is the supposedly injured party. The Leftist Liberal Media consume the 'Lie' as if it was candy - even expanding upon it.
So, losing wars to the Jews is merely the fault of the Americans who deprived them of their prey. To call the Arab Muslims "Terrorists" is not a racist statement. All the Terrorists in the last 10 years at least have been Arab Muslims. The Arab Muslim Terrorists are clever, deadly and have been trained and armed by the West. (We needed the money and the oil.)
Therefore, American had best be prepared to defend against malicious and nefarious Terror attacks of yet unknown magnitude. Winston Churchill once intoned: "The Hun is either at your throat or at your feet." So too, a radical Muslims, dedicated to a world dominated by Islam, will not stop until they are utterly defeated.
So are their supporters in FR.
A Hatred Beyond Understanding
Source: Sierra Times; Published: September 9, 2002; Author: Alan CarubaSaving Islam from bin Laden [Christopher Hitchens]
Source:The Age (Melbourne); Published: September 5 2002; Author: Christopher HitchensMuslim leaders pledge to 'transform West': 'If Islamic state rises, we will be its army'
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: August 13, 2002; Author: Jon DoughertyToday's Criminal Will Become Tomorrow's Islamic Terrorist
Source: CNSnews.com; Published: June 25, 2002; Author: C.T. RossiDavid Horowitz: Know The Enemy (And What He Believes)
Source: FrontPage magazine; Published: June 24, 2002; Author: David HorowitzFour Myths About Muslims
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: June 13, 2002; Author: C.T. RossiTrying To Find A `Moderate' Islam Is A Quixotic Quest
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 20, 2002; Author: C.T. RossiThe Islaming of Europe
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 20, 2002; Author: Alan CarubaWhy Islam Can't Join the Modern World
Source: FrontPageMagazine.com; Published: May 16, 2002; Author: Jamie GlazovIt's The Attitude, Stupid [re: Palestinians]
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: May 14, 2002; Author: Philip SafranReports of Moderate Islam's Existence Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: April 22, 2002; Author: C.T. RossiIt's time to snap out of Arab fantasy land {Steyn}
Source: National Post; April 19 2002; Author: Mark SteynIslam Vs. The World
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: December 2, 2001; Author: Alan CarubaArab World Poverty -- Whose Fault?
Source: Capitalism Magazine; Published: 11/18/01; Author: Larry ElderWill the Real Islam Please Stand Up!
Source:Van Jenerette Editorial Comment, Various Publications;
Published: October 14, 2001; Author: Van JeneretteCivilization Envy
Source: National Review Online; Published: September 28, 2001; Author: Jonah GoldbergTerror's Homebase, All Over The Map -- Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam
Source: Wall Street Journal-- Book Review; Published: | March 29, 2002; Author: Adrian KaratnyckyThey Live to Die (Islam Martyrdom)
Source: Wall Street Journal; Published: April 7, 2002; Author: Reuel Marc Gerecht20 Suppressed Facts About Israel, Islam
Source: Koenig's International News; Published: April 9, 2002; Author: Jim BramlettHOROWITZ: A MIDDLE EAST HISTORY PRIMER
Source: News and Opinion.com; Published; April 10, 2002; Author: David HorowitzArafat Must Go!
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: April 10, 2002; Author: Alan CarubaNetanyahu speaks before US Senators
Source: http://netanyahu.org/netspeacinse.html; Published: April 10, 2002; Author: Benjamin Netanyahu
And I think you're mistaken. Not mistaken with regard to your comment on "final victory", etc., but with the implication you have derived from the article. Let's look at the sentence you originally commented on....
Israel was time and again forbidden the fruits of victory to secure her sovereignty.
There's no implication of a "final" victory.....now, you could question what the "fruits of victory" are necessary to secure sovereignty and how the US prevented Israel from achieving them.
It is historical fact that the US/UN has bailed out the Arabs once Israel started winning the whichever war the Arabs started. Whenever the Arabs attacked, neither the US nor the UN said anything. It was only once the tide turned against the attackers that the US and the UN intervened to prevent any more loses on the part of the Arabs.
Perhaps, "fruits of victory" could be simple translated as preventing the attackers from ever again launching an attack by making them formally surrender and demilitarizing. Simply put, the Arabs have never been forced to surrender to Israel. They never been made to realize that they "lost" a war. And that's very important from an Arab point of view.
You are, of course, free to persist in your view that "final victory" and "fruits of victory" are exactly the same thing without defining what that is. However, I don't think you can support that with any facts.
Well, that's the great thing about the US, everyone is free to express an opinion.
Let's look at the sentence you originally commented on....
Israel was time and again forbidden the fruits of victory to secure her sovereignty.
There's no implication of a "final" victory.....now, you could question what the "fruits of victory" are necessary to secure sovereignty and how the US prevented Israel from achieving them.
There is every implication of a possible final victory. You can't have fruits of victory without a victory. You can't have a victory at all unless the author thinks one is possible. In fact, the author straight out says not only that victory was possible, but that Israel actually achieved one, not just once, but several times:
In each war that Israel won, the Americans, Europeans and the Soviets would step in to insure that there was no final surrender by the Arabs.
How's that for facts?
It is historical fact that the US/UN has bailed out the Arabs once Israel started winning the whichever war the Arabs started.
LOL, is that right? That's not my recollection, but if you wish to try to prove it somehow, go right ahead.
Whenever the Arabs attacked, neither the US nor the UN said anything.I don't see any facts backing this up.
It was only once the tide turned against the attackers that the US and the UN intervened to prevent any more loses on the part of the Arabs.
Again, no facts. Since Israel would not be able to survive without massive US subsidies, the burden of proof is on those challenging US motivations.
Perhaps, "fruits of victory" could be simple translated as preventing the attackers from ever again launching an attack by making them formally surrender and demilitarizing. Simply put, the Arabs have never been forced to surrender to Israel. They never been made to realize that they "lost" a war. And that's very important from an Arab point of view.
So, victory entails ensuring the survival of the Israeli state. Pretty much what I said originally, though I question the utility of forcing the Arabs to acknowledge "defeat" in a latter-day Treaty of Versailles situation. "Defeat" as you define it would not stop terrorism one iota and perhaps only give it more impetus. "Demilitarizing" the Arabs would not solve the terrorism problem, either, and Israel has not been attacked in a major land war in almost 30 years.
You are, of course, free to persist in your view that "final victory" and "fruits of victory" are exactly the same thing without defining what that is. However, I don't think you can support that with any facts.
I don't need to supply any more facts than I have. I have given textual support for my questioning of the author's unsupported and biased attack on the US. But thanks very much for the permission to think what I like.
Flatly not true.
Ben Gurion et al. ran away with the mandate and proclaimed the Israeli state as an explicitly Jewish state, and the leadership of the American Jewish Congress was in Harry Truman's office like a shot, to demand that Truman recognize Israel over and against the advice of the State Department. They proceeded to remind Harry of the very tight race he was facing, and basically told him that if he wanted another term as president, he'd either do what they wanted, or all the Jewish political money in America would be going to back Tom Dewey. That got around at the time (I think Margaret Truman was the source of the story) and made some people unhappy with the bareknuckle politics of it, but the AJC got what they wanted.
As for the people at State being supposed "Arabists" and sneaky anti-Semites, a) one wonders how they could be both pro-Arab and anti-Semitic, and b) I'm from the South, and I've never had any friends up there at State, either -- so what? The State Department has always been a WASP club, and they've always been snotty about letting other people in their treehouse. I can't remember the last Irish Secretary of State, can you?
The article, in summation, is a bit of a drone, full of self-righteous sorrow for oneself that doesn't help carry any of the essential points the writer wanted to make.
As for the arms embargo, the new Israeli state managed to get enough practical help to arm and field a force sufficient to defeat the Arabs, and there were an awful lot of contributions from American Jewry and other Americans that reached Israel, official arms embargo or no official arms embargo (on both sides? or just on the Israelis? -- the author doesn't say).
Are you saying that all those scenes of carnage at Israeli bus stops, pizza parlors, bar mitzvahs, and discos are all imaginary?
Exagerration does a just cause no good, especially when a compelling case can be made without it. "Arab Muslims" are by no means the only terrorists, or sources of terrorism, within the last tens years. Non-Arab Muslims also have a role. The mullahtocracy of the Persian nation, Iran, probably edges out the Arab state, Syria, as the number one terrorist supporting government. Among non-Muslims we have narco-terrorists in Columbia and elsewhere, and extreme left groups like the Red Brigades still operating, and killing people, in Europe. Although it has yet to become deadly, eco-terrorism has caused significant property damage in the American West.
So, is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?
What is this? The senior prom?
Actually, the Arab nations closest to the Democratic Republic ideal (and remember "close" is a relative word) are those with little tangible resources, specifically oil, i.e. Bahrain, Jordan, Tunisia, etc. Maybe more like benign dictatorships, but with some semblance of representation and law.
Take away the oil money, and these countries are no different than Benin or Cameroon (worse actually). Forced to produce "something" , as opposed to "nothing", they are more susceptable to external (ie WTO, etc.) pressure.
Complete energy independence would be nice but is not going to happen soon, but if we can take Iraq and Iran out of the "producing nothing but oil" categories, that will dry up money for PLO type intransience. This may not happen soon, but it MAY happen. Thats all Israel can hope for, unfortunately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.