Memo to FBB (Fabulous Baker Boy): Whose Security?

By Matthew Mausner

The resurrection of James Baker from the foreign-policy oblivion where he belonged brings ill tidings for Israel. From both Republicans like Baker and Democrats like Jimmy Carter, we are hearing the same myths: that if only Israel would give the Arabs everything they want, there would be peace in all the world.

Iranians try to erase the Holocaust from history: Americans, it seems, want to erase 1967 from history. Was there perfect happiness for all Arabs before the six day war? Was there a happy Palestinian state, then? Was there no terror? The answer is, of course not. Pre-'67 Israel without Jerusalem, without the Golan Heights, without the west bank, was embattled and besieged. Constant PLO terror attacks, Syrian shelling of Jews in the Galilee, and massive armies on all borders were only the most visible problems Israel had. Jews were not allowed to visit or pray at the Western Wall or at the cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, despite promises by Jordan.

Meanwhile, Egyptian occupation of Gaza and Jordanian occupation of Yehuda and Shomron were brutal and violent, with no real rights or hope for Palestinians (ironically, Israeli occupation resulted in a big improvement in Palestinian standard of living after '67.) Rather than being happy with the situation, Arabs were united as never before or since in the absolute need to destroy Israel; this would be accomplished by the armies of the Arab nations, who would parcel out the holy land between them. No provisions were made for an independent Palestinian State.

Is this what Baker would have us return to? To indefensible borders, supported by US 'guarantees'? I suppose the US public would support another major Middle East war in the near future, this time to defend Israel? I ask the American public, will you send your soldiers to the Galilee to repel a Syrian or Hezbollah missile threat or invasion? Will you allow your sons to be stationed in Sderot, under the missile fire of a Hamas-run "Palestine"?

The simple fact is, there are no Arabs or Muslims today-- countries, organizations, or people-- who can offer Israel "peace". The universal belief of the Muslim world is that Israel's very existence is an affront, an unbearable insult. Not just 'fundamentalist' preachers, but almost all Muslim media, education of children, and even theater, extols the virtues of martyrdom: it is better for Muslims to die than to let Israel and its Jews live.

Israel-- and the Americans who would presume to negotiate on Israel's behalf-- must be aware in any bargaining, there must be something offered on both sides. There is no point in negotiating for something the Arabs DO NOT HAVE. They do not have peace to offer, and the brainwashing has advanced so far that it will be several generations, if ever, that Muslims can conceive of truly accepting and living in peace with Israel within any borders.

Israel does not have 'peace' with Jordan, or with Egypt, which leads the world in anti-semitic propaganda; at best we can call it non-belligerency. Yet Israel has non-belligerency, in effect, with Syria, which is too scared to do more than merely irritate Israel via Lebanon or help for Hamas-- not so different from Egypt! And if the best they can offer is non-belligerency, why give up land? Would anything change, except that Israel would lose?

Tell James Baker to go back to his law firm, and tell Jimmy Carter to go back to his peanut farm. Israel can take care of itself. And it will, if it gets leaders who are willing to tell the oh-so-well-meaning American 'peace' advisers where to shove it.

Click here to rate this post on JBlog