Hunting Quail and Sitting Ducks...Take Two

Hunting Quail and Sitting Ducks...Take Two

By Gerald A. Honigman
June 8, 2004

With the November 2004 American Presidential election already starting to heat up the approaching summer more than usual, those of us who care about what happens to Israel have some very important decisions to make. The choices and solutions are not as cut and dry as partisans on both sides claim. Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry have said the right stuff at times...only to retract it later when audiences changed, new "circumstances" arose, or whatever.

An American President--the first since Harry Truman in 1948--finally took a political stance in April 2004 that might, in the long run, actually further the peace process in the Middle East between Arab and Jew... if given half a chance.

Regardless of some serious potential drawbacks, President George W. Bush's public announcement that Israel should not be expected to slit its own throat by absorbing millions of real or fudged descendants of Arab refugees nor have to return to the U.N. imposed Auschwitz/armistice lines of the post 1948 fighting was a positive development.

While the precise wording and such of U.N. Resolution 242 has been known for quite some time, the State Department had spent decades trying to distort the interpretation of it to require Israel to return to its 9-mile wide armistice line existence.

The main problem that immediately followed in the wake of the President's announcement has been all the derriere-kissing and pandering to the predictable Arab "rage" by the media, anti-Israel academia, etc.

The Arabist Foggy Folks quickly began to muddy the waters with its doublespeak and the like. No surprise here. They opposed Truman's recognition of Israel in the first place, and not a few multinational oil and other big business folks, with lucrative ties to the Arab oil sheikhs, have made it into the highest ranks of the State Department as well as other government agencies.

Faced, at long last, with the reality that America's policy will not reincarnate that of Allied Europe, when Czechoslovakia was sacrificed by its "friends" at Munich in 1938 over a heavily German-populated Czech Sudetenland, the Arabs--when the dust finally settles--would likely have to fish or cut bait if they expect to ever gain anything beyond simply killing Jews from all of this mess. Again, that is if the Foggy Folks don't emasculate the potential here. And that's very much a real possibility.

Things have gotten worse since the Iraqi prison abuse scandal erupted. Before long, it appeared that Mr. Bush had totally backtracked on his public, but non-binding, words of April, and Mr. Sharon appeared as Dubya's April fool. The "assurances" Sharon thought he'd get in return for a Gaza withdrawal didn't last out the month as crucial positions and decisions regarding Israel's future were once again offered up as potential sacrificial lambs to recoup America's standing with angry Arabs. Since this has been a source of severe heartburn for at least some of us, let's delve into what's going on a bit further.

Some time ago, 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 quite there yet. Furthermore, while I voted for the other guy the last time around, I'm no Bush-basher either...although I have problems with the family's oil ties and related worrisome environmental record. But there's a good possibility that I'll wind up voting for Dubya anyway this November.

So what bothers me here isn't the quail that are being hunted nor 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 his influence. I have a feeling that Daddy and James are peas of the same pod, but I was hoping, despite the odds, for something better from the son. Dubya quotes, after all, from Joshua in the Hebrew Bible...but then (up until his recent public announcement) apparently espouses Judea becoming mostly Judenrein in the next breath.

To anyone concerned about Israel not being shortchanged in terms of justice, it is indeed worrisome to see the reemergence of James Baker III on the political scene. He has evidently been appointed as Dubya's personal envoy to the Middle East, and if Mr. Bush gets reelected in November, anything goes... Bush will have nothing to lose in terms of angering a large segment of his supporters if he follows Baker's and Foggy Bottom's lead since this will be his last term in office. On this same issue, the Democrats are even worse...Mr. Peanut is likely their future main man in the Middle East. Carter has never met an Arab disemboweler of Jewish babes and grandmas that he didn't blame the Jews themselves for. And Mrs. Kerry appears to be a big financial supporter of some blatantly anti-Israel organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)...Headaches.

Baker has been in the background for decades, especially since his close friends, the Bushes, gained ascendancy in American politics. His law firm represents Saudi Arab interests in this country and typifies how people move through the revolving doors of businesses tied to Arab interests back and forth into government positions--especially those in Foggy Bottom. Baker's law partner, Robert Jordan, was appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia by President Bush in 2001. Casper Weinberger and many others have been through these lucrative doors as well. Most often, their influence has spelled trouble for an Israel trying to get a fair hearing.

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 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 launched against Israel. And with no United Nations' inquiries or trial in Geneva either. And I won't even get into Syria's past and renewed atrocities against its own non-Arab Kurds a la Saddam in Iraq.

In a Time magazine article on February 13, 1989, Baker spoke of Israel as being a turkey to be hunted and carefully stalked. He has referred to Jews working for him and doing his bidding (including the current American Ambassador to Israel) as his "Jew boys." I know a few Jew boys who'd like to have an up close and personal chat with him about all of this. But I'm getting sidetracked...so back to Baker's comments about the Golan.

What most folks don't know is that the Golan was a hotly contested region ruled by many different peoples--including Jews--over the millennia. Furthermore, it was part of the original Mandate of Palestine Britain received after World War I until imperial politics prompted a trade off with France in 1924.

Presidents Bush and Baker know full well how Syria used its acquisition and 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.

A bit later, 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. Indeed, when Israel later offered almost an entire retreat from the Heights, negotiations broke down because of Syria's insistence that it be allowed to hold Israel virtually captive this way.

What's particularly even more worrisome is that if Syria had not blundered into supporting Saddam against America in Iraq, the Administration--with Baker's and Foggy Bottom's active prodding-- would be all set to turn the screws on Israel vis-à-vis the Golan.

So what gives ?

Up until now, it looked like our President 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 progressed after the toppling of Saddam in Iraq, the President's line in the Middle East sounded 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 instance, for some thirty million stateless Kurds yet...America's best friends in Iraq, and the folks whom the Arabs are likely to slaughter yet again when America finally withdraws? Arabs must have some two dozen states, but Kurds are forbidden even one. What's wrong with this picture? Nauseating...but "justice," Foggy Bottom style.

While Mr. Bush's remarks regarding the Sharon Gaza plan were promising, as we have seen, there already appears to be major backsliding regarding them. Nothing he said, after all, was legally binding. The Foggy Folks were quick to point that out. Israel had received promises before from American Presidents in return for important concessions it was coerced into making, only to see them evaporate when they were needed in the crunch.

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. Think of all the shameful flak Israel has caught over these issues.

Every military expert 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 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 have recently been coming out that Washington is concerned that Israel is solidifying its position on the Golan and will eventually put the squeeze on here as it has done vis-à-vis the West Bank.

Of course, one could hope that if Mr. Bush stands by and solidifies his words regarding Israel being entitled to territorial compromise on the West Bank, he'll also take the same position regarding the Golan. Only time will tell here. But, meanwhile, there's plenty to be concerned about. He's already backtracked on those earlier comments, and Gaza, after all, since the days of the Pharaohs, has been historically used as an invasion route into Israel proper and is currently a rejectionist terrorist stronghold. And it still remains to be seen just how much (if any) of the strategically important West Bank America might actually support Israel retaining.

All of this has the potential of another Baker/State "done deal" scheme in the making, with G_d knows what kind of behind the scenes' pressure that has been exerted on Ariel Sharon.

Again, think about what might very likely be going on right now if the Syrians weren't acting as they are. And think about what might happen if things go even more sour for America in Iraq.

One more time...The Iraqi prison abuse news broke right after the President made his earlier, welcome April comments. It didn't take long for the Administration, with State's prodding, to then try to retrieve some good standing with Arabs at the Jews' expense. So what else is new? And what does that say about such "assurances?"

Israel will continue to be the likely sacrificial offering of the Foggy Folks to improve Arab relations. The good news is that it looked, for a fleeting moment at least, like we finally had a President who would firmly reject this pathetic treatment of a tried-and-true ally. Unfortunately, the waters have once again become muddied on this.

So, the problem really has nothing to do with quail. But it is about demanding that Israelis remain forever as sitting ducks, for that is what the absorption of real or alleged Arab refugees and a return to the pre-'67 armistice lines amounts to, whether in Judea, Samaria, on the Golan, or wherever. It is a matter about justice for somebody else besides Arabs in the region for a change. Hopefully, despite apparent setbacks, this message has finally started to sink in to Mr. Bush, and he'll deal appropriately with those who still haven't received it yet.

Comment on this article using the "Post Reply" button