Avraham Feld. Islamic Danger -3.

c)  RECTIFICATION (OR UNDOING) OF THE CRIME (INJUSTICE OR MISTAKE) OF 1948.

On the surface, this expression might be understood as denoting the return of the refugees
to Israel and the restriction of Israel to the borders laid down in the UN Resolution of 1947.
Again, however, we find that this is not necessarily so and that, in common usage, these are
only euphemisms for liquidation. The 'crime' or 'error' does not consist in Israel's
expansion beyond the borders of the UN partition plan, but in the very fact of its
establishment.
In the letter to Hussein quoted above, Nasser specifies his goal: "The eradication of the evil
that has been introduced into the Arab world" i.e. Israel, and he goes on to say that forces
must be established according to 'the extent of the total independent force required to
rectify the crime that was committed in 1948' i.e. a force sufficient to defeat and liquidate
Israel. "The restoration of the situation to normalcy, is also, as we have seen, a euphemism
for liquidation.

d) PURGING (OR LIQUIDATION) OF ZIONIST (OR ISRAELI) AGGRESSION,
LIQUIDATION OF ISRAEL'S AGGRESSIVE EXISTENCE,  LIQUIDATION OF ZIONIST
RACISM.

Terms as these might be understood as expressing an educational purpose - the eradication
of aggression and racism in Israel. The UAR, however, the meaning of these terms is
clarified: "The insistence of our people on liquidating the Israeli aggression on a part of
Palestine is a determination to liquidate one of the most dangerous pockets of the
imperialist resistance against the struggles of peoples." (Chapter 10).
The parallelism between "liquidating the Israeli aggression" and "to liquidate one of the
pockets of Imperialism resistance," shows clearly that the purpose is to commit genocide.
(Official transcript, p.96).
"Liberation from reaction means putting an end to reaction, and liberation from Zionism,
therefore, means not to exert such an influence over Israel that she will cease to be Zionist,
but to put an end to Israel, which is the expression of Zionism." Thus, the decision of the
Second Summit Conference states: (Cairo Radio, September 1964).
Their aim was to create an Arab Palestine and make it completely Arab. In the tripartite
treaty of union signed on April 16, 1963, by Egypt and Syria, the goal is presented as: "'The
achievement of a military union capable of Zionism and imperialism." (al-Ahram, May 17,
1963).
e)  REPULSION OF THE ZIONIST DANGER, OR  ZIONIST AGGRESSION, OR  ISRAELI
AGGRESSION,  OR DEFENSE OF ARAB NATIONALISM, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS,
RESISTANCE TO THE ISRAELI DANGER.

The strangest usages, however, are those employing terms such as 'repulsion,' 'defense'
and 'preservation.' These ostensibly describe a defensive situation, but in current usage,
they may be given an offensive connotation, as if it is argued that because of Israel's
essentially 'aggressive'[ nature, her liquidation is an act of defense.
Haykal, for example, describes how an Arab leader met the leaders of the Ba'ath and asked
them "..what were their plans for repulsing the Israeli danger, adding that without the
Egyptian army, especially after the development of its revolutionary armament, there was
no prospect of preventing Israeli expansion." (al-Ahram, August 9, 1963).
From this wording, it may be understood that "the repulsion of the Israeli danger" had a
dual significance: a) defensive: to ward off Israeli expansion; b) offensive: returning land to
the Arab world, meaning, the liquidation of Israel.
Similarly, Shukairy's introduction to the National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation
Organization, which he headed at the time, defines ______ of the organization as: "A
mobilizing leadership of the forces of the Palestine Arab people to wage the battle of
liberation and as a road to victory."

Similar uses of such terms may be seen in the following examples:
After having declared that "Israel will not escape her inevitable fate," Nasser speaks of the
time "when we shall decide to enter into the battle in order to face the Israeli danger"
(March 27, 1964).
The expression 'defense of our existence' is also used in similar euphemistic senses. For
Nasser, it means not only preservation of Egypt's existence, but fulfillment of broader
aspirations: "When we say that we seek to defend our existence, we mean that we should
not fall into the same trap as in 1948." (June 22, 1962).
In 1948, of course, Egypt's existence was not in any danger; 'to defend our existence,'
therefore, is used here to mean fulfillment of the aspirations for victory in war and the
defeat of the enemy.
f) LIQUIDATION OF THE TRACES OF AGGRESSION (IZALAT ATHAR AL-UDWAN)
This is the Arab aim as defined after the defeat in the Six-Day-War. Nasser coined this
expression in his resignation speech of June 9, 1967, and it has been given widespread
currency since then. It is another example of an ambiguous term which may be given a
limited interpretation-bringing about the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces to the pre-
war lines,  or a broader meaning: the liquidation of Israel, for according to Arab
conceptions, Israel is fundamentally aggressive. The advantage of such a formulation is that
the goal defined in it may be expanded at a later stage, although the aim may be limited for
the time being because of present conditions, and it does not involve abandonment of the
old goal.
Present day media is using the same words in their propaganda onslaught that is being
accepted as truth and as facts to be used for policy making and media dissemination.
4. SIGNIFICANCE OF USE OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT FORMULATIONS OF THE OBJECTIVE:
CRITERIA OF FREQUENCY
An Arab leader or writer sometimes uses one expression to denote the objective and
another for deceptive public relations. If we assume that these expressions differ in their
meanings and denote various objectives, we must conclude that Arab spokesmen suffer
from national schizophrenia, since there is a substantial difference between acceptance of
Israel's existence on condition that some change or other is affected and the demand for
her liquidation.
If we were really confronted with various objectives, the question would arise which of
them is the true one and which is false and unreal. We may spare ourselves, however, the
trouble of dealing with this problem; the Arabs are not schizophrenic in their conflict with
Israel. The various expressions consistently present a single, though complex objective. The
objective is the liquidation of Israel, the rectification of the injustice done to the Arabs, the
restoration of the refugees to their possessions, the removal of the Jewish factor, the

restoration of the land to Arabism, the restoration of rights, rejection of the fact created by
aggression, the implementation of justice, settlement according to legal rights, self-
liberation, and that it makes no difference what expression is used.
Then what is the meaning of this plethora of expressions and phrases used to denote the
objective? Why do the Arabs need such ambiguous and deceptive expressions?
It should be pointed out that such "inflexibility" in the definition of the objective is not
confined to the Arabs; nor is it merely an expedient for camouflage and concealment. The
tendency to define an objective in positive terms by emphasizing the desirable results which
the party in question will attain through its achievement, while ignoring the undesirable
consequences for the other side, is not unknown in history.
The Germans, for example, emphasized that their aim was the attainment of "Lebensraum"
- "living space," although more living space for them meant less for their neighbors  as
those defined neighbors realized. The Arabs, too, argue that Zionism also defined its
objective in a positive form while ignoring its negative aspects, since it declared that its goal
was to solve the Jewish problem.
Even if we suspect that the use of ambiguous and indirect expressions involves an attempt
at camouflage and deceit, there is nothing new in that either. Euphemism is a common
device. Hitler emphasized the injustice of the 'Diktat' of Versailles and the need to annul its
provisions while his intentions were actually aggressive. It is hardly necessary to recall such
a perversion of language as the expression 'the Final Solution.' Similarly, the Japanese
proclaimed the aim of establishing a 'Co-prosperity Sphere' when their actual purpose was
the expansion of the territory under their hegemony.
It may be that the proclamation of 'liquidation' as a political aim and a national ideal
arouses some discomfort among the Arabs themselves, for it recalls 'genocide' and 'the
final solution,' and may repel world public opinion. A public call for liquidation of a political
and national entity may arouse difficulties which, it is thought, can be avoided by the use of
ambiguous expressions. Thus, the terms we have reviewed, even if they include the word
"liquidation,  refer to the liquidation of "aggression" or "Zionism," and not, expressly, of
Israel. The ambiguous expression is, therefore, a sublimation of the express goal
Foreign support for the Arab attitude is achieved by the use of ambiguous expressions such
as 'restoration of rights,' or a ''just solution," "a peace settlement in accordance with legal
rights" or "compliance with UN decisions" (the significance of the last expression will be
discussed later).
Foreign visitors to Arab countries can testify that they have heard no talk about the
liquidation of Israel, for they do not always understand the significance of the ambiguous
expressions. One would not comprehend, for instance, that liquidation is the aim which
hides behind such an innocent expression as "the restoration of the position to one of
"normalcy",  which Nasser used in his address to the United Nations General Assembly. In a
world of tribulations and abnormalities, who would refuse to support the restoration of
normalcy? They became master spin doctors in using language involving 'smoke and
mirrors.'
Demands for the genocide of Israel can be verified in declarations and articles designed for
only their own people to see.
They may have a valid psychological reason for the use of ambiguous expressions even at
home. Direct talk about the liquidation of Israel may make the Arabs feel uncomfortable
about the prospects of attaining the goal, for they may feel doubtful if it is practical. The
presentation of the goal in more indirect and refined, perhaps also indirect expression, as it
were, includes a justification of the goal, and even a guarantee that it can be reached. The
leaders may also feel that it is easier to get their people to support a goal formulated in
obscure, indirect and ambiguous terms, since the more ambiguous the formula, the more
people will agree with it.
After the Six-Day war, on the other hand, the demand was expressed that
liquidation/genocide should be pigeonholed because it was not practical at that stage and
was harmful to the Arabs.
Instead of demanding the liquidation of Israel, Arab spokesmen would demand
"compliance with UN decisions."
Tibawi, an Arab who did advanced research on the Middle East at Harvard University, wrote
in an article published in the Middle East Journal: "The majority of Arabs hope to achieve,
sooner or later, the complete destruction of Israel." Others think of either a reduction of the
State along the lines of the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, or the elimination of the
sovereign State of Israel in favor of 'Jewish autonomy within a larger Arab state.'
Present-day Arabs feel that the UN will continue to cooperate in their genocidal policies. If
Israel does not accept a proposed UN resolution, Arabs then conclude that military action
would be justified.
There is a growing danger posed by the Iranian nuclear threat and its various tentacles-
Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. The civilized world ignored the news in the 1930s of Hitler's
intentions to rule and exterminate. Yet, this is what could happen with Islamofascism, the
modern successor of the Nazi regime, if left unchecked.
Denial of danger, even when the writing is on the wall, seems to be stamped on western
civilization. The Jewish people must be more aware of the dangers that surround them.
In every generation, they arise to destroy us but the Almighty saves us! Jewish tradition
explains that G-d helps those who help themselves. Alas, the civilized west and freedom-
loving democratic Israel are sending out messages of weakness. This feeds, fosters and
invites a venom of Islamofascism and encourages military attacks against us all (Uri Dan).