Op-Ed: Perhaps the Best Hagelism Yet
Gerald A. HonigmanThe author is an educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Mid-East...
I know. I can hear it all now:
“Just because he doesn’t like Israel doesn’t make Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, an anti-Semite.”
While in theory that might sound nice, in reality, the sad fact is that if you believe that, with the over three millennia-old Zionist holiday of redemption fast approaching–you’ll also believe I’m the Passover Bunny.
Judeans expecting the same thing that hundreds of other different peoples, from Antilleans to Zimbabweans, expect--a place to call their own. And, in the Judeans’–Jews’–case, it’s the very same place they prayed for (even in forced exile) for over three millenna, long before most other peoples ever entered recorded history.
Yes, we know about Hagel’s problems with the “Jewish Lobby”–while ignoring the almost century-old influence and collusion between Arab petro-potentates and the United States government which makes the alleged AIPAC bogeyman look like child’s play. While I haven’t checked yet, I’ll bet Hagel has already benefitted from this as well. Other Arab pals, like former Presidents Carter and Clinton, sure have–to the tune of scores of millions of dollars.
Yes, we know that Hagel is beloved by the current regime of Iran’s murderous mullahs. Now why might that be?
And yes, we also know that Hagel refuses to designate Hizbullah–which loves to deliberately murder civilians all over the world in addition to those in Israel–as a terrorist organization. Among others, eighty-five Argentinan Jews were blown apart in Buenas Aires. But hey, Hizbullah is just a bunch of freedom fighters–just ask Chuck.
The list goes on. And if I had to predict whom Obama would pick for such a position, it would indeed be someone just like Hagel.
The President wields much power in deciding which peas share his selective pod. Given this–and the refusal of any Democrats to show any backbone on such issues–why should Obama’s key appointees and advisors not share the same animus towards Jews who refuse to prostrate themselves to his demands that their chief does?
Think of Obama’s good buddies on this same subject–Zbig Brzezinski, Susan Rice, Robert Malley, Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Powers, Tony McPeak, and many others like them. The Nation of Islam’s Louis (“Judaism is a gutter religion”) Farakhan even called Obama the messiah. Is this all just coincidence or a case of birds of a feather flocking together?
But, perhaps the icing on Chuck’s cake came with one of the newest revelations.
Alana Goodman reported in the Washington Free Beacon on February 14th that Hagel stated in a 2007 speech at Rutgers University that the State Department was controlled by Israel. The claim would be funny if not so obnoxiously twisted.
Hagel is, no doubt, an anti-Semite through and through. His assorted assertions are typical of his breed. He sounds like a reincarnated General George Brown several decades ago. Yet, Obama’s Democratic Jewish congressional and other supporters continue to live in Lalaland.
Personally, I prefer my anti-Semites out in the open–so I give Hagel credit for that. Lately, I’m getting sick of some of my fellow-Jews myself. Too many appear set to jump onto the cattle cars yet again–or worse, be accomplices to others shoving their brethren abroad onto them. This is, after all, what a return by Israel to the imposed armistice lines–not borders–of 1949 would likely translate into and the major cause of friction with the Obama crew. It is also what the fight over the settlement issue is largely all about: Judeans–Jews–once again living in Judea and in Jerusalem near their Temple Mount.
What a stretch ! Americans in Samoa but no Jews in Samaria. Got it.
Yet, maybe I’m not being understanding enough.
Since Hagel brought the subject up, perhaps–like with America’s policy towards Iranian nukes–he just had a lapse of memory or was just plain innocently ignorant on the subject of the State Department and the Jews. A few examples pointing to the absurdity of his Foggy Bottom statement are thus in order.
From the get-go, President Harry Truman had to buck the State Department over the very recognition and rebirth of Israel.
Since at least the days of FDR’s contacts with Ibn Saud of Arabia, the U.S. government has been in political and economic bed with the oil sheikhs. While this was and is understandable, the fact that the very resurrection of the Jewish homeland was being held hostage to others’ access to oil was deplorable. As the Kurds in Mesopotamia had promises made to them broken in the aftermath of World War I due to a collusion between petroleum politics and Arab nationalism, there were active efforts to abort the age-old aspirations of the Jews. Besides the oil issue, there was also outright anti-Semitism involved.
And while an Israel, which came to be born on some 12% of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate of Palestine, sits on much less than one percent of the region, please recall that Arabs got to have the almost two dozen states they possess to date on almost seven million square miles of territory by the conquest and forced Arabization of mostly other native, non-Arab peoples’ lands throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Furthermore, Arab Jordan was created on almost 80% of the original Mandate of Palestine’s area.
The State Department watched as a nascent Israel was attacked by a half-dozen Arab nations in 1948 and did nothing.
In the 1950s, numerous Israelis were killed in Fedayeen attacks originating from the Egyptian occupied Gaza Strip. Then, in 1956, Egypt blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, assumed national control of the Suez Canal, and blocked it to Israeli shipping–also violating the Suez Canal Convention of 1888. The State Department, under John Foster Dulles’s lead, took Egypt’s part and forced a unilateral Israeli withdrawal.
In 1967, when Israel was once again blockaded (a casus belli), Egypt’s Nasser expelled the UN peacekeeping force in Sinai and Gaza, amassed 100,000 troops on Israel’s armistice line, and daily called for Israel’s and the Jews’ deaths, America–under State Department leadership– declared “our position is neutral in thought, word and deed.”
Given the above, for the first twenty years, somehow it just doesn’t look like those Jews had the State Department at their beck and call.
So, how about more recent history?
The June 1967 War was indeed an important moment in this relationship. I have written about this frequently–especially since its lingering issues still haunt us today. For an in-depth account, please see http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/
In the wake of ’67′s hostilities, the architects of the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 understood that Israel could never return to the armistice lines of 1949 which made it a mere nine to fifteen miles wide at its vulnerable waist–where its capitol, parliament, international airport, most of its population, and infrastructure are located. Presidents Johnson, Reagan, and others were vocal in this need for a territorial compromise over territories Israel acquired as a result of repeated attempts to destroy it by its Arab neighbors.
Lands have exchanged hands all over the world for far less.
As ’67′s dust settled, however, and as the decades passed, that same State Department–which Hagel says is in Israel’s pocket–did everything in its power to render 242′s call for the creation of more secure, defensible, and real borders to replace Israel’s former Auschwitz lines meaningless. “Resolution To Kill The Resolution” details this in depth and is a chapter in my own book
It got so bad that when Israel started to erect its security barriers to prevent Arabs from blowing up civilian buses, restaurants, pizza parlors, hotels, and the like, the State Department used its Jew front men, like Ambassador Dan Kurtzer, to pressure Israel into not crossing the ’49 armistice line–thus leaving Ben Gurion Airport exposed, and so forth.
Since I mentioned Dan Kurtzer, how can I leave out Secretary of State James Baker III? Dan was–in Baker’s own words–one of his 1980s and ’90s “Jew Boys.”
While Bush the First was at the helm, widespread published reports circulated that Baker promised Syria’s 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.
Think about the implications of that today regarding what is currently going on in Syria–and the fact that the alleged “good guys” attacking the younger Assad mocked him for not retaliating against Israel for taking out advanced missiles being sent to Hizbullah in Lebanon. In a Time magazine article on February 13, 1989, Baker spoke of Israel as being a wild turkey that needed to be hunted and carefully stalked…the very same State Department dude who, among other gems, proclaimed, “f’-the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.”
The list goes on and on--like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton’s famous shouting episodes at Israeli leaders who did not prostrate themselves low enough to demands for such things as the Jews providing Arabs with Israeli weapons, dismantling checkpoints in sensitive areas to save Jewish lives, and Jews daring to live once again in parts of Jerusalem near the Temple Mount and in Judea and Samaria–which Arabs had prevented them from doing until the ’67 War. Recall that Jews owned land and lived there until massacred by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s.
Okay, enough. There's plenty more, but I think you get the picture.
The very fact that Hagel thinks and says things like this is the real issue here, as the statement itself is patently ridiculous.
The “Arabist” bent of the State Department is legendary.
His propensity to such assertions leaves no doubt that President Obama has simply decided to add yet another blatant anti-Semite to his pod.
I offer no further comment–except that I hope that the 70% of American Jews who greatly aided in his re-election are happy. And the second term is just beginning.