Gerald Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral work in Middle East studies, has lectured on numerous university and other platforms. He has debated many of the best Arab and pro-Arab academics in public debates and on television. Mr. Honigman is widely published in academic journals, magazines, newspapers and other publications.
Sun Jan 04, 2004 4:39 am Hunting Quail and Sitting Ducks
Hunting Quail and Sitting Ducks
By Gerald A. Honigman
January 2, 2004
President Bush spent the New Year holiday hunting quail with George Sr. and James Baker, a close family friend. Chances are pretty good that they traveled farther to do this than the State of Israel is in width.
Now I have nothing against hunting per se, as long as it's done in a sustainable way to put food on the table. Only vegetarians have a right to protest this, and I'm not there yet. Furthermore, while I voted for the other guy, I'm no Bush-basher either...although I have problems with the family's oil ties and related worrisome environmental record. But I'll probably vote for Dubya the next time around anyway.
So what bothers me here isn't the quail that are being hunted or the hunters. My problem lies with the influence James " _ _ _ _ the Jews they don't vote for us anyway" Baker continues to have on the presidential family and an even more bothersome worry that the family shares many of these same ideas with or without Baker's influence. I have a feeling that Daddy and James are peas of the same pod here, but I was hoping, despite the odds, for something better from the son. He quotes, after all, from Joshua in the Hebrew Bible...but then apparently espouses Judea becoming Judenrein in the next breath.
While Bush the First was at the helm, widespread published reports circulated that Secretary of State Baker promised Hafez al-Assad the same deal on the Golan Heights as Egypt's Sadat received in the Sinai Peninsula...a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces. And this was prior to negotiations between the parties themselves... a promise Baker evidently made to Saddam's virtual twin butcher, author of the "Hama Solution," etc. Hama was the town that dared oppose Assad and suffered tens of thousands of casualties within a few months as a result...far more than Arabs have suffered after several years of intifada and suicide bombings against Israel. And with no United Nations' inquiries either. And I won't even get into Syria's atrocities against its own non-Arab Kurds a la Saddam in Iraq.
Presidents Bush and Baker know full well how Syria used its position on the Golan prior to '67 to rain death on Israeli kibbutzim and fishermen in the Sea of Galilee below. And they also know the losses Israel took to end that state of affairs when war was forced upon it--largely via Syria's instigations and game playing with Nasser's Egypt--in 1967. Had it not been for Israeli forward positions on the Golan, it was an easy downhill assault into Israel proper when Syria attacked in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. And if you believe that Israel was attacked to simply retrieve "occupied lands," I have two bridges to sell you. The passes Israel now controls greatly prevent a renewed Syrian assault. Additionally, much of Israel's water supply originates in this area...a vulnerability Syria is well aware of and has tried to cash in on in the past.
So what gives here?
Up until now, it looked like George W. was able to distance himself from the troublesome record of the past. His Dad's venomous attack against Israel when the latter launched its surgical strike against Saddam's Osirik nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 still haunts my memory. It angered too many of his Arab oil buddies and their State Department allies.
But as the months now progress after the toppling of Saddam in Iraq, the President's line in the Middle East sounds more and more like the same one constantly pushed by Daddy, Baker, and Foggy Bottom: "Justice for Arabs and _ _ _ _ everyone else." Has anyone heard of a "roadmap" for some thirty million stateless Kurds yet? Arabs must have a 23rd state, but Kurds are forbidden even one. Nauseating.
America can acquire, conquer, or whatever land and manipulate, topple, or whatever governments in the name of its own national security interests, but how dare Israel build a fence to keep Arab bombers from blowing up its kids that does not precisely cling to its pre-'67, 9-mile wide armistice line existence or insist that a compromise is in order to assure that Baby Assad doesn't follow in Papa's footsteps. Right now he has an incentive not to do so: Israeli long range artillery on the Golan are in a position to potentially do unto Damascus what Damascus actually did unto Jews for two decades prior to '67. Every military personality who has visited the Golan from abroad has given the same advice: Israel would have to be suicidal to return to the status quo ante bellum here. Israel doesn't have the wriggle room on the Golan or in Judea and Samaria / West Bank that it had in the Sinai. Yet reports are now coming out that Washington is concerned that Israel is solidifying its position on the Golan and will put the squeeze on here as it has done vis-à-vis the West Bank.
All of this sounds too much like another Baker/State "done deal" scheme with G_d knows what kind of behind the scenes' pressure being exerted on Ariel Sharon. While territorial compromise to create "secure and recognized borders" to replace Israel's 1948 armistice lines a la UN Resolution #242 are in order regarding the territories, a unilateral retreat to reward terrorism and Arab rejectionism forced upon Israel by its shades of Munich "friends" is a disgrace. And it has the stamp of James Baker all over it.
No, once again, the problem has nothing to do with quail. But it is about demanding that Israelis remain forever as sitting ducks, for that is what a return to the pre-'67 armistice lines amounts too. Let's try less sympathy for dead Jews and a little more empathy for live ones for a change.
Comment on this article using the "Post Reply" button
Having just watched another of the would-be democratic party candidate debates for the 2004 presidency, I note that Dean would love to have Baker (and Jimmy Carter- ) onboard for ME dealings.
You know, I've almost stopped seeing things as liberal-conservative but in Israel-Arab terms and I'm not in a good mood now...probably shouldn't have posted, but what the heck?
Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:10 pm James Baker, biggest Anti-Semite
James Baker hates the Jewish people and especially hates Israel. I can remember his arrogant statement in front of Congress, when questioned about Shamir, "he knows where to call me, my number is 202======".
He is an arrogant SOB who wishes Israel would disappear from the map. So far, Bush has been strongly on the side of Israel. Although Bush II is a great hypocrite. He discusses getting rid of terrorist states, yet insists Israel have a 23rd Arab terrorist state alongside Israel. Israel needs secure borders as the Golan, the Jordan Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and a large empty buffer zone in between Gaza and Egypt. Israel must be protected from the 22 Arab terrorist states in the Middle East, all controlled by dictators. Judea and Samaria belong to Israel. The "so called Palestinians are just another group of Arab bedouins. They should be moved to the other 22 Arab countries that occupy 99.1% of the Middle East. If Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein because he was a terrorist, leading a terrorist state and killed his own people, just look at Yasser Arafat. Arafat is "the father of terrorism". He originated terrorism with the first airplane hi-jackings.
We must let Bush know of our displeasure with his condemnation of Israel's fence. We must also let him know the bedouins must be moved to other Arab countries for Israel's security. There is no 2 state solution. That was tried with the Oslo Accords, which turned out to be a miserable failure. Israel cannot tolerate any more failures due to the failed policy and Anti-Semitism of the Bush and Baker crowds. Close to 1,000 Israeli children, women and men have died since Oslo. Over 2,000 have been maimed and wounded, some of them forever. Israelis live in the paralysis of fear, never knowing what is around the corner. If Bush wants democracy in the Middle East, Israel must get rid of the terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank. It is time for the Exodus of these people to other Arab countries. They should join their fellow Arab terrorist friends. There was never a country called Palestine. But, the country of Israel has existed for close to 5,000 years. The Jewish people were dispersed from their homeland by many invading armies. But all of Israel belongs to the Israelis.
As Patrick Henry so eloquently stated, "If we don't hang together, we will all hang separately". Anti-Semitism is pervasive throughout the world today. Jewish people must stick together and make a strong stand against this Anti-Semitism, including the Bush and Bakeer crowd. Let George Bush II know exactly what we think. He will not have the Jewish vote if he criticizes Israel and does not come down hard on the terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza, as he did against Saddam Hussein. Let's speak loud and clear to Bush, "We do not need a 23rd Arab terrorist state".
In stating that despite his reservations, Gerald Honigman will vote for Bush next time round, though he (alongside the majority of Americans) did not do so last time) displays the extraordinary naivete that makes Europeans despair of what Americans like to call their "democracy". For one thing, if elected this time, Bush could probably claim a third term, on the grounds that he was only elected once before! Here is a man who is demonstrably inadequate for the presidency, manipulated, like Reagan, by who-knows-who for their own ends and who could jump in any direction as a consequence. You won't be voting for George Dubya Mr. Hongman but for whoever is manipulating him at the time -- and according to your theory this means Baker!
_________________ Josephine Bacon
American Pie Translations
179 Kings Cross Road
London WC1X 9BZ
In stating that despite his reservations, Gerald Honigman will vote for Bush next time round, though he (alongside the majority of Americans) did not do so last time) displays the extraordinary naivete that makes Europeans despair of what Americans like to call their "democracy". For one thing, if elected this time, Bush could probably claim a third term, on the grounds that he was only elected once before! Here is a man who is demonstrably inadequate for the presidency, manipulated, like Reagan, by who-knows-who for their own ends and who could jump in any direction as a consequence. You won't be voting for George Dubya Mr. Hongman but for whoever is manipulating him at the time -- and according to your theory this means Baker!
You've got us pegged!
However, I wll be voting for Clark...or I won't be voting.
View previous topic • View next topic 
) onboard for ME dealings.