Open Letter to the Foggy Folks

Open Letter to the Foggy Folks

By Gerald A. Honigman
March 23, 2004

I continue to read of your State Department's criticism of Israel regarding the fate of the disputed territories. It seems, unfortunately, that President Bush has bought into your positions as well.

As a proud American who knows his own nation's history reasonably well, I find this a bit perplexing...to say the least. But more on this later...

You, who bucked President Truman's recognition of a newly-reborn Israel in the first place in 1948, don't like Israel's security fence, especially it's possible route.

I know...You claim that you are only acting "in America's best interests," and those of us who disagree with you are therefore disloyal. Malarky!

Using this same reasoning, you're now doing the same number on some 30 million stateless Kurds today -- while insisting on a 23rd Arab state -- that you tried to do to post-Holocaust stateless Jews.

You, who rejected bombing the railroad tracks leading to Auschwitz (while our bombers were flying over the town itself), and gave orders to the U.S. Navy to chase the German liner S.S. Saint Louis away from the Florida shoreline so its Jews wound up in Nazi ovens instead, now also insist that Jews cave in to all Arab demands regarding the disputed -- not "occupied" -- territories.

There was no sovereign power legally in control of Judea and Samaria, the "West Bank," when Israel took control of these lands from Jordan in a war that the latter helped start by joining Egypt's Nasser in his adventures designed to eradicate Israel in May of 1967. The Hashemites had earlier seized those unapportioned parts of the Mandate -- open to settlement by all peoples -- in their earlier attempt, along with other Arab states, to nip a reborn Israel in the bud in 1948. Only Great Britain -- whose officers led the Transjordanian Arab Legion -- and Pakistan recognized this acquistion. Disputed...not occupied.

You claim that Israel must stick to the "Green Line" of its 9-mile wide, armistice line-existence. I'll bet you folks drive further than that just to get to work. And let's not mention the territories our own nation came to possess, control, or manipulate -- some thousands of miles away -- in the name of our own national security interests.

Does the name Manuel Noriega and dozens of others ring a bell? And what's Guam and Guantanimo Bay all about? No one else really had any choice in these matters -- and hundreds others like them -- did they? I'm not arguing that we didn't have our reasons...but we're the most powerful nation on Earth, and our borders extend three thousand miles from coast to coast. Is not a little empathy for our tiny, embattled ally -- Israel -- in order here in these same regards?

You seem unable to figure out that Israel's 9-mile wide, artificially-imposed existence was a travesty of justice in desperate need of rectification. The post-'48 armistice lines were never meant to be final borders.

I realize that you folks don't want the second Arab state that is to be created within the original borders of Palestine as Britain received it on April 25, 1920 (Jordan emerging in 1922 on some 80% of the whole) to be a "bantustan," but whatever the size, shape, etc. that proposed 23rd Arab state might eventually be, justice demands that it must not come at the expense of security of the sole, miniscule, resurrected state of the Jews. But, then again, your colleagues opposed that resurrection in the first place. And, once again, I don't see them supporting a "roadmap" for some thirty million stateless Kurds either.

It seems that justice for Arabs takes precedence over justice for everyone else with you guys. So understand the concerns that many of us have.

You parrot the Arab call for Israel to return to those pre-Six Day War suicidal lines. Yet you know full well that the very architects of the final version of UN Resolution # 242 -- Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg, etc. -- had no such plans in mind...despite what Arabs claim today. And they've written extensively about this, as have legal experts such as William O'Brien and others on related issues.

While they did not envision Israel holding on to large amounts of territory, they also did not expect a return to the status quo ante given the fact that Israel had just fought a defensive war after being blockaded -- a casus belli -- at the Straits of Tiran and other hostile acts. And they stressed that any withdrawal must be linked to a total cessation of hostilities (not Arafat's temporary "Peace of the Quraysh" designed, in the Arabs' own words, as a "Trojan Horse") and the creation of secure and recognized borders to replace those fragile lines that you now insist Israel retreat to.

Please don't offer the advice that Israel is prejudicing the outcome of negotiations. You know full well that Arabs still want all of Israel proper (take a look at their maps, websites, etc.)...so don't think that we're all stupid and expect them to agree to a permanent compromise over the disputed territories.

Disputed...not "Palestinian" Arab lands.

One more time. This must sink in...though I know it won't.

As leading experts have explained, those lands were non-apportioned parts of the Mandate, and all residents of the Mandate had the right to settle there. Indeed, as recorded by the League of Nations' Permanent Mandates Commission and others as well, scores--if not hundreds--of thousands of Arabs poured into these areas and Israel proper from surrounding Arab states -- i.e. Arab settlers setting up Arab settlements -- because of Jewish capital developing the land. Why do you consider Arabs in these areas "legal" but Judeans -- Jews -- in Judea not?

I'm sure that you're quite aware that most of Israel's population and industry lies in that narrow waist area bordering Judea and Samaria, the "West Bank." Those lands were not called by that latter name until British imperialism entered the scene in the early 20th century and Transjordan later seized the west bank of the Jordan River in 1948. Jews lived and owned land there until they were massacred by Arabs. Arabs would have never even known of Abraham's tomb in Hebron without the scriptures of the Jews they disembowel and despise.

If Judea must become Judenrein, then should Israel become Arabrein? Think about that a bit. I can, unfortunately, build a better case for the latter than you can for the former.

Israel has suffered, proportionally, many times over our 9/11. Yet, when tragedy hit our own home, you unleashed your leader's famous "Powell Doctrine"...massive retaliation against our enemies. B-52s, B-1s, Stealth bombers, cruise missiles, and such along with daisy cutter and bunker-buster bombs did our negotiating for us. And we insisted in toppling the regimes that were responsible and targeted their leaders. When we thought we knew where Saddam was dining, we leveled the place -- innocent civilians and all. In short, despite your claims of differences, the hypocrisy and double standards stink...and many red-blooded Americans are among those who smell the stench.

Asking Israel to return to the Green Line when you know full well that Arabs have continuously responded that even a total Israeli withdrawal would still not make it "acceptable" is sickening. You're fully aware of the Arabs' "destruction in phases" strategy that they've spoken about since post-'67.

Many of us were hoping--despite the continuous influence of Big Oil and other multinational corporations -- that the historical anti-Semitic, let alone anti-Zionist, stance of your Department could finally be moderated. Your current unfair demands of a beleaguered ally do not bode well for this. Your position is nothing short of a disgrace on the honor of our great nation. Hopefully the Administration will come to its senses. Israel, the sole State of the Jews, should not be expected to sacrifice itself on the petroleum-greased altar of international hypocrisy so that Arabs can have their 23rd.

Now I know this will tick you off, but, like it or not, many see an analogy to pre-World War II Czechoslovakia and the Sudetenland here. You really don't want to buy "peace for all time " in Judea and Samaria today the way Mr. Chamberlain sacrificed his Czech "friends" to Hitler at Munich, do you?

Demanding microscopic Israel to forsake necessary minor adjustments -- i.e. extending its width from nine to perhaps fifteen or twenty miles -- in light of the nature of the rejectionist enemy it faces is unfair, plain and simple.

Other nations, including our own, have changed their borders and acquired territories for far less.

Comment on this article using the "Post Reply" button