Racist Arabs, Darfur & Israel

Tales of Darfur and (Racist Arabs that cry falsely) "Racist Zionists"!

Tales of Darfur and Racist Zionists!
By Gerald A. Honigman (06/16/2006)
http://americandaily.com/article/14096

Tucked into an article on page nine of my local Florida paper on June 15th was a classic line...but I doubt if it was noticed or sunk in to most who even got to read it. It was, after all, nowhere near front page or an op-ed, editorial, or such. And it wasn’t the sports section or the comics.

I mean, if Arab civilians in Gaza get killed (due to a war waged by leaders they themselves elected whose goal is to exterminate their Jewish neighbor), then there’s a real story for ya…big pictures, big stories (using only Arab sources), editorials, the whole shebang. That’s the all-too-typical deal if Israel is the alleged bad guy.

But those in that June 15th story were not Arabs allegedly killed by Jews defending themselves (indeed, evidence now shows that the recent Gaza tragedy was directly caused by Arabs themselves), so page nine would do nicely…

While the media has been running more articles about the Sudan of late and Darfur in particular, for whatever reasons, the message just doesn’t seem to sink in to those who, unlike too often in the past, are at least now covering the story.

The article by Nick Wadhams of the Associated Press dealt with the findings of the U.N.-backed court probing war crimes in Darfur.

In about the middle of the article, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, was quoted in his report to the Security Council as stating that eyewitnesses repeatedly told of the perpetrators of the atrocities telling victims such things as, “we will kill all the black…we will drive you out of this land.”

But, try as you may, one would be at a loss in this article to determine who those above perpetrators actually were. No need to ever guess, however, when the articles are about Israel…

The perpetrators, of course, are Arabs who have waged this war in Africa in the name of the Arab nation for over four decades (actually, since the 7th century C.E.). For whatever reasons, too often that little detail is left out when Arabs are involved…and for the same reasons why the average reader doesn’t get to read about Kurdish school children being forced to sing songs today praising their alleged “Arab” identity in Syria, the plight of non-Arab Berbers, Assyrians, Copts, native kilab yahud “Jew dogs,” and so forth throughout the “Arab” world.

Rare was the college or grad student who heard anything about the war in the Sudan in the classroom back in the 1960s when its modern version erupted bigtime. Periodically the public would be tossed reports of Anya-Nya “rebels” who began a renewed revolt against the imposition of Arab rule in the south in 1963...like those now coming from some contemporary columnists today.

For similar reasons, one seldom heard about Kurds or other non-Arab residents of the region as well. The only time, for example, that I heard about Kurds (thirty million of them and, unlike Arabs, truly stateless) from the tenured chief honcho at Ohio State while doing doctoral studies in the ‘70s was when he made a mockery out of their own national aspirations while describing his travels throughout Turkey. But “Palestine” and the “plight of the Palestinians” never left center stage. And Hitler's ally, the Mufti, was his hero.

Both then and now, too often it is Israel, alone, which is constantly put under the high power lens of scrutiny despite the fact that--unlike how Arabs have treated their own perceived and more numerous nationalist competitors--the Jews indeed made repeated and honorable attempts at compromise with them.

Think about numerous blacks in Africa alone--not only in the Sudan--who suffered quite a different fate at the hands of Arabs whose idea of "compromise" involves total subjugation to their own cause. Millions of these people have been massacred, maimed, enslaved, turned into refugees, and so forth in the name of the Arab nation. Now ask yourself about how many times Arabs have been taken to task by the international community--the media, academia, the U.N., and so forth, always so quick to accuse Israel for any and all alleged sins--for such things.

In contrast to this Arab version of “compromise” (and as must be repeated over and over again whether some like it or not as just one of numerous examples), purely Arab Jordan sits today on over three fourths of the land of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate of Palestine. And later there were repeated attempts to create that 2nd state for Arabs in Palestine on the quarter or less of the land remaining after 1922’s creation of Transjordan. These were rejected by the Arabs themselves. Arafat did it again just a few years ago. So much for the Arab claim that the Jews got all of the land. Did Arabs ever offer any such thing to their own nationalist rivals?

But there’s no mystery here…

Again, quite simply, in Arab eyes, no one but themselves could be rulers and/or perceived as equals in their neck of the woods--not “their” Jew dogs, gassed Kurds, enslaved and massacred black Africans in the June 15th article, and so forth.

A few years ago, David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote on September 16, 2003 of the danger in playing America's Turkish card in Iraq. When referring to Kurds, he managed to label them only as terrorists or rebels.

At a time when most media folks still debate whether or not Arabs--who deliberately blow up busloads of Jewish innocents in buses, pizza parlors, teen nightclubs, and such--are "militants" or "terrorists," folks like Mr. Ignatius have no problem using the "T" word for Kurds.

And Ignatius' comments have often been echoed elsewhere, such as in Thomas Friedman's March 26, 2003 op-ed in the New York Times. Friedman advised that the Kurds should be told point blank, "what part of 'no' don't you understand? ...You Kurds are not breaking away."

Keep in mind that these are the same folks who, day after day, write volumes espousing the creation of the Arab’s 22nd state and second, not first, Arab one in “Palestine.” But I've yet to see the paper or hear the commentary endorsing similar rights for blacks in the Sudan, calling for a roadmap for Kurdistan, and so forth.

While, at long last, more coverage is being given to the carnage in the Sudan, those who should know better still act deaf, dumb, and blind.

Imagine if these were Jews committing these atrocities?

We don’t have to imagine.

Think of the Muhammad al-Dura affair, the alleged Jenin massacre, etc. and so forth. Front page news, editorials, and op-eds for months…And it turned out--as usual--that the Arabs lied through their teeth about all of this, and an all-too-gullible West was all-too-willing to simply accept the Arab version of any given story over and over again…

Why?

Is it that after victimizing Jews for millennia, Gentiles need to convince themselves that Jews are indeed as bad as themselves?

As just the latest example of this mess and the West’s collaboration in demonizing the Jew of the Nations, while Arabs hastened to hide and cart off evidence from that recent Gaza beach tragedy (where Israeli artillery responding to daily Arab rocket fire allegedly killed Arab civilians), it turned out that Arabs lied again. Surviving evidence points to Arabs mining the beach to prevent Israeli commandos from launching another attack which took out Arab rocket crews a bit earlier. Hundreds of mortars and rockets have been deliberately launched against Israeli civilians over the past months during their alleged "cease fire." It appears that Arab picnickers most likely encountered one of their brothers’ own mines.

So, again, what’s up with all of this?

I think I know but will be accused of being a paranoid Jew if I say it.

So, back to the Sudan…

Back in early March 2006, I came across Nicholas Kristof’ New York Times’ op-ed dealing with the Darfur genocide. And, unlike the June 15th article mentioned above, he actually did manage to mention the word Arab (once) as well. Indeed, compared to most of his colleagues, Kristof has shown a bit more responsibility in portraying the broader perspective regarding the struggle for political rights in the region. Some of his latest reports were even live from the Sudan.

Despite this, Kristof still doesn't get it...And if he doesn’t, the others of his ilk certainly don’t.

Is it a genetic defect common to ultra-left reporters which dictates their seeing the entire region only through Arab lenses? A current or future payoff from Arabs (others, for example, habitually move through the revolving door of politics and big business tied to Arab megabucks…including Presidents, Secretaries of State, and so forth)?

Or, is it that “Jew thing” yet again?

Given the policy of the liberal media (and I’m a registered Democrat who drives a hybrid Toyota Prius) to treat all others in the region besides Arabs as mere interlopers or rebels, their audiences remain largely ignorant of the numerous atrocities committed against any and all who don't accept subjugation and forced Arabization as their fate.

And even all, like Kristof, who finally write exposés about Arab actions--and even use the word Arab from time to time in doing so--still cannot get themselves to make the next essential leap...that others, besides Arabs, are also entitled to what Arabs demand exclusively for themselves.

While I share with this crew the concern about the earlier effects of imperialism and colonialism Western style in the region, the ultra left media has too willingly turned a blind eye to the tens of millions of non-Arab peoples and/or lands which have been conquered, settled, massacred, enslaved, turned into refugees, and colonized by the Arabs' own centuries' old and continuing imperialist policies (the Dar ul-Islam vs. the Dar al-Harb mindset, and so forth), creating new victims--black Africans, Kurds, pre-Arab conquest but Semitic Lebanese, Copts, Jews, Berbers, and so forth--as this piece is being written. Recall that half of Israel’s Jewish population were refugees from the “Arab” /Muslim world.

In case there are any doubts as to what the Arab game plan is for the African part of what Arabs like to call “purely Arab patrimony”--again, lands forcibly conquered and Arabized from largely non-Arab peoples--please pay close attention below.

The Third World likes to chastise the West for its condescending attitudes. Again, I agree with much of that criticism. Rudyard Kipling's poem, The White Man's Burden, and all that stuff...

But while the liberal media is quick to agree, why is it mum about such things as President Nimeiry's statements during the slaughter of over a half million blacks in the Sudan in the 1960s and 1970s (and several times more ever since) that...the Sudan is the basis of the Arab thrust into...black Africa, the Arab civilizing mission ("Arabism and Pan-Arabism in Sudanese Politics," Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 11, #2, 1973, pp. 177-78)?

Is it that the Arab Man’s Burden is acceptable, but the White Man’s Burden’s isn’t?

Or why, over the decades (and numerous Kurdish, Assyrian, Jewish, Copt, Berber and other victims), no response to this all-too-typical Arab approach as expressed in the Syrian Arab Constitution of the Ba'th?:

"...The Arab fatherland belongs to the Arabs. They alone have the right to direct its destinies...The Arab fatherland is that part of the globe inhabited by the Arab nation which stretches from the Taurus Mountains, the Pacht-i-Kouh Mountains, the Gulf of Basra, the Arab Ocean, the Ethiopian Mountains, the Sahara, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea."

As I’ve noted before, I still can't tell for sure. Perhaps someone can help...

Are there any Eskimos also included in that above Arab vision?

Probably not…but think about Mindanao in the Philippines. Or much of Europe if it doesn’t watch out. France had its own little intifada not long ago.

Keep in mind that these are the same folks who like to condemn alleged expansionist, racist Zionists who dare to assert that Jews deserve a state more than nine miles wide. Those same Jews who have made Arabic the second official language of their state and who have Arab representatives in the Knesset who regularly side with Hamas (which rejects the existence of a state for Jews for the same reason one for Kurds or black African Sudanese and so forth is rejected) against the country in the region which has the freest Arabs…Israel.

The June 15th AP article ended by stating that Sudan’s national courts have shown little desire to investigate crimes against humanity in Darfur. Sadly, no surprise here…

But consider also the travesty of justice committed for decades by those in the West and elsewhere--the alleged moral watchdogs in academia, the media, and so forth--who too often turn a blind eye to the happenings above and don’t demand more...unless it involves Israel. The latter was brought to the International Court of Justice in Geneva for building a fence designed to keep Arabs from deliberately targeting and blowing apart its children.

How many editorials, news reports, op-eds, articles, political cartoons, pictures, and so forth have been devoted by the “liberal” media to the cause of the Arabs’ 22nd state…that additional one in “Palestine” which Arabs demand take the place of the Jewish one, not live in peace beside it?

Now ask yourselves when the last time was that you heard something similar being demanded for any of the Arabs’ numerous victims mentioned above…

My Jewish “paranoia” again?

I think not.

Racist Zionists?

Yea, right…

Don’t think so.

*Ed: Views are those of individual authors and not necessarily those of American Daily.