More than anyone, the Jews know that
nothing they do in Israel is worth a dog's poop until it is officially and
publicly given the seal of approval by the United States of America.
Even when the criminally minded Congress
of an earlier era had approved the acceptance of Israel's annexation of
Jerusalem after decades of occupation, but allowed for the deferral of its
ratification by the President, the move was viewed as nothing more than just
another poop left on the porch of the home where civilized humanity lives. And
then things started to diffuse their stink, when Donald Trump grabbed the poop
and threw it into humanity's living room.
Being who they are and given a finger, the
Jews now want the arm. They are calling for a repeat of the Jerusalem
performance, this time with the Syrian Golan Heights that were occupied by
Israel for some time, and then annexed by it. You can see one such request made
of America under the title: “US Should Recognize Israel's Sovereignty Over the
Golan Heights,” an article that was written by Mitchell Bard and published on
March 15, 2019 in Algemeiner.
Bard's argument rests on two pillars. One
is the predicted angry reaction by the Arabs that did not pan out, he says. The
other is Security Council Resolution 242, which he views as more useless than a
dead rat. But then, on second thoughts, he found the Resolution to be not
useless but useful. In fact, he now sees it as more useful to Israel's future
plans than anything America could say at this time. Well, that's not to
invalidate or replace the earlier request for America to maintain a military
presence in Syria, in order to protect Israel when the Syrian Government will
decide, as it surely will, to start the process of retaking the Golan.
To explain the part of his argument
concerning the angry Arab reaction that did not pan out, Mitchell Bard created
a fiction that is as real as the La La Land of Shangri-la. It is a version of
the standard Jewish staple that unfolds on a daily basis according to this
formula: One Jew dickers with another Jew about Arab thinking. One Jew is
wrong, the other is correct. This is why we need never consult the Arabs about
their thinking. Well, that was the formula. What follows is the actual story as
told by Mitchell Bard.
Martin Indyk representing the “Arabists”
but not the Arabs, was wrong about predicting what the Arabs will do in
response to America's support for Israel's position, says Mitchell Bard. Most
other Jews, including Bard himself, were correct, he goes on to say. Indeed,
Indyk and the Arabists were wrong because they made predictions similar to the ones
they had made about the Jerusalem move, which went as follows:
“American embassies and citizens will be
targeted by angry demonstrators. Confrontations between Palestinians and
Israelis will erupt in the West Bank. Hamas might resume rocket attacks from
Gaza. They will stoke the fires of violent resistance in the West Bank and
Jerusalem. Arab and Muslim states will demand that Trump rescind the decision”.
None of that happened, and similarly nothing
will happen when America will recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan,
says Bard. But he later discovered that Indyk had said something different with
regard to the Golan. And so, he quoted Indyk's words, hoping that the readers
will look at two different things and believe they were one and the same thing
just because he says they ought to be the same. Here is what Indyk had said
about the Golan: “Like it or not, the Golan Heights are Syrian territory.
Israel's annexation of territory that is not its own is to play with fire for
partisan political purposes. No Arab state will accept it”.
How different but said to be the same!
This happens only in La La Land, you say? Pity.
As to Security Council Resolution 242,
Bard made a mess of it that is no less disorderly than the mess he created with
regard to the predictions concerning the Arab reaction. Here is a condensed
version of what he said about the UN Resolution:
“Indyk argued that Israel would violate UN
Resolution 242. But that resolution long ago lost its relevance. Let's recall
what it says: It calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied
territories. Note that the authors did not require the evacuation of all the
territories because they recognized the borders could be modified somewhat. The
resolution also called for the recognition that every State has the right to
live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. Translated, this means
that Israel has no obligation to return the Golan Heights”.