DEPRIVING THE ARABS OF THEIR PREY (GREAT READ)

WINSTON MID EAST ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY | September 13, 2002 | Emanuel A. Winston

[BenF]

The Arab Islamics are good at this.

So are their supporters in FR.

[KellyAdmirer]

I never said I had any idea of what a final Israeli victory would look like. In fact, I think the whole notion of a "final" military victory is ridiculous. That appears to be what the author of the piece suggests the US has deprived Israel of achieving. I think that implication is obnoxious.

[Terriergal]

GREAT article!

[spodefly]

BTTT

[tracer]

It would be logical for them to adopt the chant "Satan akbar!" when referring to the "Great Satan" (their words).......

[monkeyshine]

Good read. Thanks for the ping. They call it 'Nakba', the catastrophe - may all their violent endeavors be their Nakba.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related Articles:

A Hatred Beyond Understanding
Source: Sierra Times; Published: September 9, 2002; Author: Alan Caruba

Saving Islam from bin Laden [Christopher Hitchens]
Source:The Age (Melbourne); Published: September 5 2002; Author: Christopher Hitchens

Muslim leaders pledge to 'transform West': 'If Islamic state rises, we will be its army'
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: August 13, 2002; Author: Jon Dougherty

Today's Criminal Will Become Tomorrow's Islamic Terrorist
Source: CNSnews.com; Published: June 25, 2002; Author: C.T. Rossi

David Horowitz: Know The Enemy (And What He Believes)
Source: FrontPage magazine; Published: June 24, 2002; Author: David Horowitz

Four Myths About Muslims
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: June 13, 2002; Author: C.T. Rossi

Trying To Find A `Moderate' Islam Is A Quixotic Quest
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 20, 2002; Author: C.T. Rossi

The Islaming of Europe
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 20, 2002; Author: Alan Caruba

Why Islam Can't Join the Modern World
Source: FrontPageMagazine.com; Published: May 16, 2002; Author: Jamie Glazov

It's The Attitude, Stupid [re: Palestinians]
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: May 14, 2002; Author: Philip Safran

Reports of Moderate Islam's Existence Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: April 22, 2002; Author: C.T. Rossi

It's time to snap out of Arab fantasy land {Steyn}
Source: National Post; April 19 2002; Author: Mark Steyn

Islam Vs. The World
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: December 2, 2001; Author: Alan Caruba

Arab World Poverty -- Whose Fault?
Source: Capitalism Magazine; Published: 11/18/01; Author: Larry Elder

Will the Real Islam Please Stand Up!
Source:Van Jenerette Editorial Comment, Various Publications;
Published: October 14, 2001; Author: Van Jenerette

Civilization Envy
Source: National Review Online; Published: September 28, 2001; Author: Jonah Goldberg

Terror's Homebase, All Over The Map -- Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam
Source: Wall Street Journal-- Book Review; Published: | March 29, 2002; Author: Adrian Karatnycky

They Live to Die (Islam Martyrdom)
Source: Wall Street Journal; Published: April 7, 2002; Author: Reuel Marc Gerecht

20 Suppressed Facts About Israel, Islam
Source: Koenig's International News; Published: April 9, 2002; Author: Jim Bramlett

HOROWITZ: A MIDDLE EAST HISTORY PRIMER
Source: News and Opinion.com; Published; April 10, 2002; Author: David Horowitz

Arafat Must Go!
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: April 10, 2002; Author: Alan Caruba

Netanyahu speaks before US Senators
Source: http://netanyahu.org/netspeacinse.html; Published: April 10, 2002; Author: Benjamin Netanyahu

[BenF]

I never said I had any idea of what a final Israeli victory would look like. In fact, I think the whole notion of a "final" military victory is ridiculous. That appears to be what the author of the piece suggests the US has deprived Israel of achieving. I think that implication is obnoxious.

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.

[Nachum]

I always enjoyed Immanuel Winston. Always interesting to read him. Nice post.

[KellyAdmirer]

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.

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.

[lentulusgracchus]

Not only did the Americans not assist Israel in 1948 but America, along with Europe, embargoed arms shipments to Israel. [Emphasis added.]

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).

[Alouette]

Israel has not been attacked in a major land war in almost 30 years.

Are you saying that all those scenes of carnage at Israeli bus stops, pizza parlors, bar mitzvahs, and discos are all imaginary?

[swarthyguy]

Final Victory Scenario.

Damascus a demil trading post straddling the borders of Turkiye and Israel. WestBank & Gaza, the "so called occupied territories" to quote Rumsfeld, part of Israel.

A democratic Iraq, a rump Saudi and a ProUS regime in Baghdad.

Howszat?

[KellyAdmirer]

No, terrorism attacks are all too real. But there has not been an attempted invasion of Israel by ground forces since 1973. Terrorist attacks are not done with tanks and jet bombers and artillery which would be the subject of demilitarization. Demilitarizing the Arabs would not stop terrorist attacks imho.

[Stultis]

All the Terrorists in the last 10 years at least have been Arab Muslims.

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.

[Alouette]

But there has not been an attempted invasion of Israel by ground forces since 1973.

So, is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?

[KellyAdmirer]

Well, I think the absence of war and related casualties is always a good thing. Unfortunately, demilitarization seldom works as a preventor of war, or there'd be a lot more of it going on.

[Alouette]

I think the absence of war and related casualties

What is this? The senior prom?

[Kozak]

I don't know what the author thinks an Israeli "victory" would look like.

Well, how about a negotiatiated peace treaty ending the war, recognizing Israels right to exist, and recognizing its borders for staters. Then they might consider promising to renounce terrorism. All that would have been available to the Israelis but for the intervention of the UN and the West after it's victories, when it would have been submit or die for the Arab governments involved.

[Nonstatist]

Arab leaders have no incentive to modernize or install democratic reforms

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.