Despite the effectiveness of my daily beta blocker in controlling the work of my heart, my blood pressure rose to astronomical heights with my growing anger as I read the two consecutive articles and their misplaced emphasis on and sympathy for the Arab feelings of inadequacy and regret arising from their failure to destroy Israel and the Jewish people in June, 1967, that appeared in the May 5, 2017, issue of the Forward, the first by Jane Eisner and the second by Hussein Ibish.After demonstrating some understanding of the significance of the Six Day War – there are many levels for this war is to be understood in its entirety - from the supposed social/humanitarian, to the military, political, technological, diplomatic religious, economic and geographical levels – both authors lament the fact that the Arab/Muslims were losers in wars they initiated.
Both essayists prefer looking at the outcome of the war primarily on social concerns. Eisner stated that “It was a historic victory for Israel, absolutely. It was also a disaster for another people.” What does she think war is? It is not a game where a delusional player or observer can say everyone wins. Historically, in war, there is a winner and loser. Eisner obviously seems to resent this reality. Eisner makes it sound as if Israel is responsible for the disaster of the loser. She effortlessly glosses over the self-inflicted wounds, corrupt leadership and embrace of terrorism she mentioned, but she conveniently forgets so many facts, that I could write a master’s thesis if not a doctoral dissertation on the subject. However, let it suffice, for the while that although Israel won not just the 1967 war, but also the 1948, 1956 and 1973 wars as well as several smaller wars, it became the only victorious nation in the history of the world that is forced to sue for peace. Immediately after each war, the moneyed interests and the haters (anti-Semites) of the world become involved to undo the victory while protecting the perpetrators of the wars and demand that Israel, the victor, has to give back land etc.
The concept of land for peace that was developed is one of the most stupid ever developed. Not only doesn’t it work, it puts Israel on the defensive and once again puts the Arab/Muslims in positions of winners and people who do not have to negotiate a peace. For anyone who doubts that land for peace does not work one does not have to look to Gaza etc., all anyone had to do was just ask the American Indian (Native American).
Eisner seems to resent that Israel won those wars while she demonstrates a false empathy for the losers when she talks about the checkpoints and the glimpses of what it is like to live without basic freedoms as people view “this inhuman drama.” But Eisner, and others of her ilk, never come to grips with the real issue: what would have happened if Israel had lost just one of those wars. There really would have been a real inhuman drama as Israel would have be destroyed and Jews murdered as the Arab/Muslims would have completed Hitler’s work as they threatened and still threaten to do.
There is a thought game that Eisner and others should engage in: she and they should ask and answer two questions:
First, what would happen if the Arabs unilaterally were to put down their arms today? (Peace would break out.)
Second, What would happen if the Israelis unilaterally were to put down their arms today? (There would be a mass slaughter of Jews).
Further, Eisner and others, including the heads of states, in her and their zeal for Israel to make peace and provide the Arab/Muslims with freedom and a state of their own and get out from under Israeli domination, refuses to take cognizance of the important fact the Arab/Muslims have refused to remove from their charter that their ultimate aim is to destroy all of Israel. How do you make peace with people who are convinced that you have no legitimacy and have no right to exist and who are determined to destroy you?
Proof of what I said not only emanates virtually daily from the mouths of Muslim leaders, but more interestingly from the article by Hussein Ibish.
Anyone who truly understands what was behind the Arab/Muslim wars, especially Nasser’s massing of troops on Israel’s border in 1967, would understand that Ibish article is nothing more than the expression of anger for the failure of the Arab/Muslims not getting to realize their true aims against the State of Israel and the Jewish people as they tried since 1948 and before.
There will be peace when the leaders of the Arab/Muslim nations stop using religion as the basis for continuous hate and the leaders of the world either stay out of all negotiations or stop acting on their anti-Semitic attitudes or their visions of personal grandeur as being the messiah whose legacy was having brokered peace between the two antagonists by taking anti-Israel positions and by forcing everyone to deal with the very real issues that they are so quick to protect the Arab/Muslims from having to face. Golda Meir was not wrong when she said, in essence, there will be peace when the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate us.