Hopefully you have read Part I and II. If not just scroll down to find them.

I would first of all like to discuss the issue of refugees in the Mid-East. It seems that everyone who wishes to re-write the history of the area neglects to write about the Jewish refugee problem that was created when Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria with the help of Iran attacked Israel beginning in 1948. At that time the Arabs who abandoned their homes numbered around 587,000. The UN took charge of them and began to house, feed, care for, and educate them. They did not resettle Arab lands but rather chose to become wards of the UN. Ah, but the second group encompasses the Jews who, between 1947 and 1963 were uprooted from African and Middle Eastern countries where their ancestors had lived for generations and where they were full-fledged citizens until they suddenly became anathema. They numbered about 650,000 at that time. They or their offspring are now productive citizens of Israel. Generally they were poor; but collectively they left behind property valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. All arrived in Israel penniless but they are not a “problem” for the UN or anyone else. Instead, they are home, secure under their own flag, protected by their own laws, wandering Jews no longer.

The world has not overly concerned itself with the Jews who were constrained by forces beyond their control—discriminatory laws, persecutions, physical violence, and purposeful exclusion from Arab societies—to flee “to a place of safety,” thus meeting Webster’s definition of “refugees.”  Attention has been concentrated instead on the plight of the Arabs who left Palestine voluntarily, persuaded by their own military commanders and politicians that the war against the Jews would be short and their victorious return would be sweet with booty. Hence, they might be categorized more properly as “fugitives” rather than “refugees.” The Arab states rejected every proposal by Israel (and by various international bodies) for absorption and rehabilitation of the former residents of Palestine. Their refugees do not represent for the Arab states a human problem to be resolved at the earliest possible moment but a propaganda weapon to be preserved at all costs, regardless of the consequences to the people involved.

We can definitely see the results of that today. The only “solution” for the refugees according to the Arab states, is the complete annihilation of Israel and its Jewish population. Meanwhile the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) has spent nearly a billion dollars, most of it contributed by the U.S., in providing housing, food, medical care, and education for these so-called refugees. What started out as relief for approximately one-half million people is now “relief” for 4.7 million Arabs in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and occupied Palestinian territory (whatever that is). The Arab states have refused to absorb their own people into their societies or to contribute to their welfare. Their only answer is war with Israel; as if that would solve their problems. For decades, Israel has been offering compensation for the landed property left behind by Arab “refugees” and taken over by Israel. The Arab governments will have no part of these offers.

All problems, including the so-called refugee problem, arising from Israeli-Arab tensions remain problems only as long as the Arabs continue to insist that they want to kill every Jew and wipe out Israel as a nation. The moment the Arab states and the “Palestinians” recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, problems disappear. It is not difficult to imagine railway and highway communications running from Haifa to Beirut, Damascus, and Istanbul; from Amman to Cairo; from the Nile Valley to the Fertile Crescent. Israel could be a bridge between these areas. With peace, the Middle East, a geographic crossroads of three continents, could be a great communications center. In fact, there are no limits to what peace could mean and bring to the region.

No progress can be made, however, if one side is not ready to negotiate. So far, the Arabs have uncompromisingly declined to recognize the right of Israel to exist let alone have peace with her. Nasserism with its overriding theme of pan-Arabism, has remained the principal obstacle to peace between the Arab states and Israel. The kind of Arab oneness which Nasser (previous dictator of Egypt) sought has little support in Arab history. Indeed, Arab unity has been the exception rather than the rule. Egypt (prior to 1/25/2011) had a unifying element with the Arab world—a common religion and language—but these are not sufficiently strong to persuade Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Iraq, and Yemen to accept centralized domination by Cairo. Now with the revolution in Egypt the question remains if there will be a unifying element throughout the Arab world strong enough, i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps. If they unify only to destroy Israel, will that be sufficient or will they continue their inter-Arab rivalry with the other Arab oil nations or between Egypt and Syria (a historic rivalry)? Also, contrary to “Nasserism,” the Middle-East is not exclusively Arab. There is Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. Is religion enough to unite them? Further, what about the influence of other countries in the area such as Russia? Will that unite or create even more conflict? These are question I suppose only the future will answer.

But back to the claims of “Palestinians” for the moment. The “Palestinians” never sought statehood when they were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Historically they wanted to be part of Syria. The claim of Palestinian statehood and independence began as a tactic to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel.  Moreover, its claim to statehood is no stronger, and in some cases far weaker, than the claims of the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques, the Chechens, the Turkish Armenians, and other such groups. The terrorism emanating from the Palestinians has brought them world-wide attention. Nevertheless, neither Israel nor the U.S. has been willing to reward terrorism in the way that the United Nations, the European Community, the Vatican, and others have. With Barak Hussein Obama as President of the U.S., the question is whether that policy will substantially change. It looks like it has.

Palestinians have been denied statehood by their own leaders, who have rejected--time after time--offers that would have led to statehood. Israel has stood ready, and stands ready today, to offer that statehood in exchange for recognition as a sovereign state and in exchange for the cessation of terrorism and acts of war. Palestinian groups on the other hand are committed only to continuing their crimes against humanity until Israel is destroyed. Would any other nation demand less than Israel? I think not.

Well, what about the settlement issue (settlements in Judea and Samaria often called the West bank), you might ask. Palestinians refused to make peace when an end to the settlements was proposed by Ehud Barak. The real barrier to peace, and no other, is the Palestinian refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state in any part of the world let alone in Israel. From a purely legal and moral point of view, there is no good reason why ancient Jewish cities like Hebron should be without Jews—Judenrein. The Jews and their descendants who were forced out of Hebron by anti-Semitic massacres should have the same right of return or compensation as the Arab refugees are claiming. But the Jews have never been given equal opportunity in the area.

What then is the real issue here that prevents peace?  Is criticism of Israel tantamount to anti-Semitism? Of course, not. Israel is not alone in the commission of mistakes. Indeed, the harshest critics of the Israeli government have been her citizens.  But is the real underlying hindrance to peace anti-Semitism? My answer: a resounding YES. Anti-Semitism takes many forms from genocidal to political, from ideological to theological, from cultural to economic, and from holocaust denial and racist terrorism against Jews to denial of Israel’s right to equality in international law. Certainly, denying the Holocaust, or blaming it on the Jews, which has been the staple of Palestinian rhetoric, constitutes anti-Semitism or bigotry. Here is an excerpt telecast on Palestinian Authority Television by Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya:  “Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them—those who stand by them. . .”  Just as an aside, I wonder if under Barack Hussein Obama America will continue to “stand by them.”

In conclusion it would be wise to remember the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoken less than two weeks before his assassination. He said: “. . . peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. . . I solemnly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews—because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all.”