Popular Posts

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

“Best Of Week, Pt. IV: ‘Discourse on Hatred’s Kingdom’ by Brian Carrick [hosted by Moses Scharbug III]”

The Grateful Dead’s one-hundred-and-eighteenth album, “Road Trips, Volume IV, Number III—Denver Coliseum, Denver, CO, November 21, 1973,” was released on April 26, 2011 and was another great edition of the Road Trips’ Series! We love it and think you will, too, so go out and buy it by using the handy link to Amazon.com, the world’s largest online retailer and get it now! You won’t be disappointed!  Thank you, the Elemental News of the Day.



Here's the countdown to December 21, 2012: from today, we have 359 days to go until the End of Days, the End of Time, Armageddon, and the End of the Mayan Calendar!  Everybody, beware!


                                                   STINKBUG 2011


Moses Scharbug III

END Commentary 12-29-2011

Copyright © 2011 by MHB Productions

Word Count: 3,715.



Elemental News of the Day Commentary-Opinion-Sports-Foodservice for Thursday, December 29, 2011 by Moses Scharbug III


Best Of Week, Pt. IV: ‘Discourse on Hatred’s Kingdom’ by Brian Carrick [hosted by Moses Scharbug III]

Bakersfield, CA, 12-29-2011 Th: Greetings, friends, I would like to inform you that we have had a programming change that was decided upon this past Sunday:  Stinkbug has decided to have Elvin C. McCardle come in NEXT week and this week will be devoted to a “best of” series while everyone except for me, Moses Scharbug III—your dedicated Assistant Editor—will be away on vacation.  I realize that most everyone is on vacation much of the time anyway but Stinkbug feels that the last week of the year will be low on the readership scale and that everyone will be away anyway.  So today, we are going to run a blog post that appeared earlier in the year on February 12, 2011 on Dore Gold’s expose on Saudi Arabia: Hatred’s Kingdom. It’s written by Brian Carrick and I am sure you will enjoy it!


By Brian Carrick

How is it that two Semitic peoples that have perhaps one of the longest historical interactions be so at odds with one another? Why is it that Jews and Muslims cannot get along? Both are monotheistic and both are rooted in common law. Shared codes of morality, ethics, and scruples influence both. Although the two faiths differ in their place and time, many of the greatest individuals—Noah, Abraham, and Moses—are recognized as important personages. [i]

The Jews await the Messiah, the Christians have Jesus, and Muhammad is the final and foremost prophet to come (for the Muslims). Of the three religions that were given birth to in the "Cradle of Civilization,"[ii] only one is in conflict with the other two. This paper deals with the relations between the first and the last of these three major faiths and leaves us with but one question to ask: Why is it that the Hebrews and the Muslims are intertwined in a dance of death much like the mongoose and king cobra?

What are the obstacles to peace? Other than an interaction based upon retaliation for every real or imagined offense, there has been little or no opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to come together. There are a host of minor hurdles such as the lack of historical perspective, an attitude of "have and have-nots," and feelings of degradation. The major impediment to peace has been human in form and that man was none other than Yasser Arafat. My thesis is this: Arafat has been the major obstacle to Mid-East peace and now more than ever the two sides have a golden opportunity to stop the bombings, shootings, and demolition that has long characterized the region.

The Arabs have tried to oust the Jews from modern-day Israel since 1948. Three fierce but bloody wars have led to a loss of territory each time and still the Arabs would try to beat the Israelis if they could.[iii] Whatever claim was once held by the Islamists to Palestine has long since been invalidated. Likewise, the Jews deserve one hundred percent of America's support because America has always been associated with the underdog in a fight that is at once both moral and just. Yet, the Americans have made ample headway in trying to hammer out a peace that is as good for the Arabs as it is for the Jews. Every president since Harry S. Truman (with the recent exception of President George W. Bush) has made the attempt to treat Arafat as a head of state.[iv]

President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have refused to recognize Arafat as a head of state; in fact, he has been viewed as having been nothing more than a stateless terrorist at best and an unmitigated murderer at the worst. Now that he is dead, many European leaders as well as old State Department hands feel that the United States should rush in and lobby for change. But Bush and Sharon want to wait and see what changes the post-Arafat Palestinian State will encompass. Will Mahmoud Abbas make an attempt at peace or will it be the continued suppuration of the intifada? Peace in the region depends upon exigencies but one thing is certain—were Arafat still alive, it would be "business as usual" (McGeary 11-22-2004:44-9).

One argument held by Arafat and the Arabs is that the Jews have no right to the land upon which, Israel exists. In order to validate this statement, one has first to look at the historical perspective before formulating a conclusion. When the Second World War finally ground to a conclusion in August 1945, the British government could easily have stripped the Arabs of any claim of "birthright" but did not. Instead, they were offered a "partition plan" that in theory would have been fair to all. Conversely, the Arabs could not find it in themselves to accept this magnanimous offer, but NO! For them, it was all or nothing, which more or less is what they received. Whatever faults may be heaped at the doorstep of the Western Powers—Imperialism, Colonialism, Racism, Christian Theism—the British made an attempt to implement what would have been a fair and equitable plan (Dershowitz 2003:32-8).

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was a powerful document in that its goals were far-reaching. Unfortunately, in order for the document to have had a bite worse than its bark, it required the successful establishment of a strong League of Nations. Sadly, with the failure of President Wilson to get the League past his senate enemies and his subsequent collapse placed incertitude upon a noble idea but had it met with success, a strong possibility existed that the Jews might have achieved their homeland much sooner. Furthermore, as utopian as it might seem, was it possible that a homogenous world could have brought peace to a chronically volatile part of the world? Hence, without the participation of the United States, the League was nothing more than a toothless paper tiger that pretty much rubber-stamped the Second World War into existence twenty some-odd years later (Roark et al 2002:796-800).

Following the First World War, British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour drew up a plan that guaranteed the Israelis a homeland and what's more, they earned it by fighting for the victorious side in both world wars. Moreover, whatever territory Israel has gained since its inception in 1947 has been at the forfeiture of its enemies who have attacked it. By the same token, the Arabs actively supported the Axis Powers in World War II, which negated for obvious reasons any claim they may have once possessed (Dershowitz 2003:32-5). The Arab nations achieved their independence but were confronted with the cold facts of life:

"Although the tiny new state of Israel, surrounded by an implacable Arab enemy, acutely felt its vulnerability, the Arabs realized in the loss of Palestine that independence did not equal power" (Mackey 2002:85).

In addition, had the Arabs and the Axis been successful, the Final Solution would have been franchised to the Middle East just as if it was a McDonald's franchise but rather then flipping burgers, they would have been flipping the switches of gas chambers. Dore Gold writes in his book, Hatred's Kingdom the following:

"For many Arab radicals, hatred of Israel stems from its being perceived as a western outpost" (Gold 2003:10).

Israel is not the blame for what transpires in the Middle East on any given day. The territory that they were given has not been of any major consequence. If anything, Jews began to settle in Palestine pre-World War I and brought progress to an otherwise loosely populated and bucolic region. They rented land from absentee landlords and through hard work and sweat achieved headway. In fact, the Jews worked with the Arabs of the area and the benefits were shared by all (Dershowitz 2003:39-44).

Yasser Arafat as head of the Palestine Liberation Organization has been one of the chief architects charged with the destruction of the Jewish State. No matter his public persona, there has never been a time in which, he has not actively lusted over the Jewish corpse. Yet, I reiterate, Arafat was feted as a head of state particularly in the capitals of Europe. One can only wonder why a man with so much, innocent blood on his hands has been seen as one imbued with culture and class? Apparently, murder is an acceptable tool of state but what I ponder then is why grand larceny gets a pass? The condition of the Palestinian people has been simply dreadful yet, never have I heard a critical word in regard to the lifestyle of the Chairman of the PLO.[v]

Arafat has lived what I would conclude to have been very hedonistic. His popularity expanded and declined in an almost cyclical manner in the rest of the world but NEVER at home among his people. He may have said that he would put dampers on the violence but in the end, it was only so much doublespeak. While Israel, the United States, and

Europe ebbed and flowed in their assessment of the chairman, he never had neglected his irregular thugs as they fought the intifada on the streets of Israeli cities. His money, power, and prestige in the Middle East never waned and it is difficult for non-Arabic peoples to understand his allure. And because of him, it is estimated that 3,500 or more Palestinians and at least 1,000 plus Israelis have died because of him (Derfner and Toameh 11-15-04:72).

In 2000, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia served as the mediator between Arafat, Israel, and President Bill Clinton. Since the formation of the Jewish State, the main hindrance to a comprehensive peace has been the "right of return." Theoretically, this is the guaranteed right of ALL refugees to be able to return to their land of origin. In reality, there are no Jews who have a wish to return to lands outside of Israel where they would exist in "Dhemmi" or second class citizenship but there is a great number of Palestinians who would love to return to Israel (Palestine). This has been one of the major points of contention because if tens of thousands of people who claim citizenship in Israel (Palestine) and were allowed to return "home," the democratic nation would be swamped with refugees. The Jews would find themselves a minority in their own nation. President George W. Bush had this to say:

"A Palestinian state and a secure Israel could be reached only by one path: the path of democracy, reform, and the rule of law,' Bush said" (Richter and Vieth 11-13-04:1). Alan Dershowitz estimates in his book, A Case for Israel that there are several million people who claim descent in the land occupies and that it is extremely unrealistic for these people who have these aspirations. In fact, Mr. Dershowitz has the following to say about this critical issue:

"As a resolution passed by the refugee conference at Homs, Syria, made clear in 1952 [that] 'Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestinian problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and [therefore] an act of treason'" (Dershowitz 2003:238-9).

At Camp David II and at Taba, Egypt in 2000, President Clinton had Prime Minister Ehud Barak ready to "give up the farm," so-to-speak. Unfortunately, I view Barak as having been a "Clinton-dupe," because never before had Israel put in play upon the table ninety percent of what Arafat and the PLO stipulated must be there before peace between the two world bodies could be realized.[vi] What other requirements existed besides the vaunted "right of return?" (Dershowitz 2003:117-22).

The option in place of the Palestinian "right of return" is compensation for the loss of land. What's more, the Israelis offered to give up almost all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, the Israelis offered territory to Egypt, Jordan, and even the Golan Heights to Syria if that nation would only agree to peace. U.N. Resolution 242 has demanded this and it be offered. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia encouraged Arafat to take the offer as it was the best deal that Israel could ever offer without transferring its sovereignty to the Arabs and Arafat turned it down (Dershowitz 2003:204-6).

So, the chairman exposed his soul when after having been urged by the ninth American president with whom he had dealt; the princes of Saudi Arabia and other interested third parties and launched the second intifada. A master manipulator, within a short period of time, Arafat blamed his refusal upon the Israelis and the world bought it. Once again, the nightly news on world television depicted the "David and Goliath" struggle of bloodied and dying Palestinians hurtling rocks at Israeli armored vehicles. The world was treated to the grief-stricken relatives crying in the street as the "fascist" Israeli bulldozers brought the houses crumbling down of the suicide bombers families. When the Israeli victims lay in the streets dying, no one cared—after all; the Israelis were the "aggressors" in this conflict.

And finally, the collapse of the peace process at both Camp David and Taba can be attributed directly to Mr. Arafat, the "would-be Hitler." His actions in refusing the comprehensive plan were to prolong the violence that was killing Palestinians at the rate of at least 3:1. What was it that he gained from this bloodshed? What was it that he achieved? Surely, his life cannot have been enjoyable; especially during his "imprisonment" at his Ramallah headquarters in the last two years of his life—particularly with the barrels of Israeli tanks pointing down his throat. Was it wealth? Perhaps so (Beyer 11-22-2004:50-4).

Whether or not one is a Bush fan does not matter—one has only to recognize that in 2001, a "new sheriff was in town." He unveiled his "Road map for Peace." To follow it, however, neither Bush nor Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would deal with Yasser Arafat. For the first time in his long life, Arafat was confronted with a new tactic—he was being treated as the unmitigated terrorist that he was. In effect, he was locked out of the house!

Arafat was a man of many things—at least to himself if not to others. He was definitely a hero to the Palestinian people—but what does that say about them? The Israelis have of course done things that need to be curtailed. They cause a certain amount of their own problems by the ultraconservative wing that is determined to continue the establishment of settlements at breakneck pace where they are forbidden to do so. A common charge placed at the feet of the Jews is ironic and despicable but it is possible to understand the subtext; that the Jews are the new "Fascists, the NAZIS" which is deplorable. However, from one minuscule point, based upon the actions of this one small group and the number of dead Palestinians then one can understand the reasoning behind the charge.[vii]

Yet, the Israelis are not NAZIS, if anything; the nation has always acted in self-defense. Most Israelis desire peace. Evidence of this is seen in the willingness of the peace process in 2000—I reiterate, Ehud Barak was ready to give just about EVERYTHING. What might have happened had Arafat accepted? What was it that Arafat desired—was it martyrdom?[viii] What drives the Palestinian people to so willingly proffer their lives so? I believe that desperation, built upon crushing poverty, of Third World status, and of no hope for the children, am intrinsic. Why has this situation been allowed to continue, especially when the Israelis are ready to pay enormous sums of money too not only recompense the Palestinians for their losses but to provide economic assistance as well for their future? Why do they remain impoverished?

I will tell you why—the final charge leveled at Yasser Arafat is that he was a rapacious thief, guilty of BILKING his own people of perhaps BILLIONS of dollars, much of it American. An article in the 11-22-2004 edition of Time states that the "financial empire" over which, Arafat ruled to have been as much as three billion dollars, which at the time of his death last year was estimated to be a sum of at least one billion dollars. I can only ask one question: why was this money not put to the good of the Palestinian people rather than having had them live in the squalor of refugee camps? It seems that money easily came to his hands:

"The Oslo peace process provided a brief windfall for the Palestinians, bringing Arafat $4 billion in donations from the U.S., the European Union, Japan and sales tax that was gathered by Israel that was passed on to him. But much of that was wasted or skimmed by corrupt Arafat associates. When a Palestinian Authority audit exposed the corruption in 1997, Arafat ordered future audits to be kept secret" (Rees 11-


His policy was to retain militants as opposed to building hospitals for the people. This sums it up in a nutshell: "Arafat only cared for the people he brought with him [in 1994] from Tunisia. They came here with nothing, and all they wanted was to build their villas and get rich." So said Palestinian butcher, Mohammed Hussein, a 60 year old man living in the city of Jelzoun when queried for his view of the PLO hierarchy (Derfner and Toameh 11-15-2004:73-4).

A final point in favor of Israel which although it may seem humorous but is not—is the fact that whatever the Israelis do to protect their borders—namely the construction of the wall is criticized much more loudly. The Arabs can slaughter Israelis everyday but let the Jews respond automatically leads to chastisement if not outright condemnation by the WORLD! The legitimacy of this statement can be seen in the picture essay, "Walling off the Peace" in the 12-22-2003 edition of Time magazine. It depicts the anguish endured by the Palestinians daily. For instance one picture of a Palestinian lad (with his pet bird in a cage) crying before the wall. Worse, yet, is the ally of the Israelis, President Bush saying: [last month having warned Israel] "not to 'prejudice' peace talks by building 'walls and fences'" (Rees 12-22-2003:37-41). Moments such as these are what Arafat lived for!

In conclusion, the process of Middle East peace has a new and perhaps a final chance at coalescing in the hands of the new Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas in conjunction with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. What can we expect? Is Abbas at the age of 69 strong enough to control the more radical elements of his potential nation? The structure of the organization to which, he was elected is rotten to the core but with the right help from the two men who seem to genuinely want to work with him—Bush and Sharon—a glimmer of hope might still exist.

Unfortunately, one recent bombing and one recent shooting have marred the picture and have removed whatever gossamer existed. Are these the dying throes of an old, evil beast or is business going to continue unabated and as usual? The world can only wonder. I believe that with the removal of the number one anathema to peace, Yasser Arafat that a chance for success still remains. I cannot believe that Mahmoud Abbas can desire this fratricide to continue. I hope that without the old "dervish" that maybe the world can sidestep Armageddon. But then again—maybe not. Is that not what we are supposed to face? Gainsaid, perhaps with the removal of one of the principal "angels of darkness," mankind may still have a chance if the lamb and the lion can lie down together in two states lying side-by-side in Israel and Palestine.


As Stinkbug tells us to tell you all each and every day and all of my companions before me; I have had a great time today and as always enjoy my opportunities to write for the Elemental News of the Day. We urge our readership to write to us and leave comments and if there are any of you, who would care to write an article for us, please get in touch via Magnolia Hilltop Brewers, P.O. Box 20669, Bakersfield, CA 93390-0669.  We obviously don’t pay anything but you will be given a full byline and that’s worth its weight in gold.  We want as many people who want to write to be able to do so and we believe that by presenting a forum for our fellow chefs, we are doing something for our beloved industry.  We love diversity and hope to add new and different authors to our pantheon of chefs, food and beverage directors, and culinary professionals.  Come on and join us, it’ll be fun! Expect that when all of us have run through our cycle, we will be introducing some brand-new talent or so I’m told.

Please remember to avoid doing business with AARC Technology in Bakersfield, CA.  These people don’t care about the small customer anymore but instead put all of their attentions onto their corporate customers. It’s sad to not remember why one has the success they do or from where it came.

Well, that will do it for our first Thursday together and the last Thursday of the year!  I appreciate the fact that you’ve very patiently accepted the fact that this week is a best of week while everyone is away on their holiday vacations.  Stinkbug has asked me to beg your indulgence as we take the last week of the year off due to the fact that not many people are around and will be reading the blog.  NEXT week, Elvin C. McCardle will be here and I know he’ll have something great.  I hope you enjoyed today’s selection!  Anyhow—all we ask of you, dear readers, is that you please leave some comments and/or become a follower and why not spend some money and purchase an album by the Grateful Dead and/or buy a cookbook from Amazon.com.  We are allied with them and are pleased to market their merchandise! See you next time around! Bye!    

Thank you!

Moses Scharbug III

Moses Scharbug III
Assistant Editor of the Elemental News of the Day

This is me when I was a university professor at one of California’s State Universities in the Southland back in the 1970’s.  I’ve been retired for the past 15 years and have been the assistant editor of the END since its first incarnation back in 2009.



END Commentary for Thursday, December 29, 2011 by Moses Scharbug III.

Please note that everyone who writes for the Elemental News of the Day is their own person entitled to their own opinions, attitudes, and insanity so does not necessarily speak for all of us.  Thanks, Stinkbug.


This original essay was written by the one-and-only Moses Scharbug III

Story created by Chef Brian Craig Carrick on February 12, 2011 in Bakersfield, CA.



“Stinky” of the Elemental News of the Day for the best of the news, politics, sports, foodservice, hotel and restaurant business, the end times, the end of days, the apocalypse, armageddon, and whatever else happens to pop up!




This is #1258 an 8” x 10" original oil painting by Beverly Carrick entitled, “Canyon Rapids." It's among her more beautiful works and is available for sale. You can see much more of her work at her Website, located at http://www.beverlycarrick.com or at Brian Carrick's Facebook page. At her Website, you will see not only more original oil paintings but also lithographs, giclees, prints, miniatures, photographs, and even her award-winning instructional video entitled, "Painting the Southwest with Beverly Carrick." Beverly has been painting for more than 60 years and is known around the world. Her work hangs in private and public galleries and is followed by a great many fans that circle the globe. We urge you to go to her Website NOW and view her work. It's possible that you will find something you like and will want to buy it for yourself, a friend, a loved one, or a neighbor! You will not be disappointed so please: do yourself a favor and go there IMMEDIATELY! Thank you, the Elemental News of the Day!

Web Pictures V

Magnolia Hilltop Brewers and What's Cookin' Productions Trademark of Quality and Symbol of Integrity. Copyright 12-29-2011, all rights reserved. No unauthorized reproductions of any of this material are permissible unless granted by written permission. Thank you, the Elemental News of the Day.

Publisher: B. Carrick

Chief Editor: Stinkbug.

Assistant Editor: Moses Scharbug III

Proofreader: Amos Mosby Caruthers.

Beer: Smokehouse.



Moses Scharbug III, Best of Week, Educational Writings, Vacation Week, Past Blog Posts, Brian Carrick, Educated Commentaries, Repeats, Previous Blog Posts, Elemental News of the Day, Best Blog Posts Ever,

Trademark of Quality c/o the Elemental News of the Day and Magnolia Hilltop Brewers Productions 2011 of Bakersfield, California, the United States of America.


[i] Jesus is a prophet held in high esteem by the Islamic faith. The Koran holds six prophets—Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad—to be the epitome of the vast multitude dispatched by Allah to serve his purposes. Jesus is the fifth of the six but only Muhammad, the sixth and final has more precedence. For Muslims, however, Jesus is NOT the Messiah nor is he the "Son of God." Furthermore, the Christians have so debased their faith that Jesus is done a disservice by their heresy and impure ways. (Source: Understanding the Koran 2004 by Mateen Elass). ISBN 0-310-24812-4.
[ii] See Cradle & Crucible: History and Faith in the Middle East. National Geographic Books—2002. Collection of essays. ISBN 0-7922-6597-1.
[iii] The War of Israeli Independence was fought shortly after Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. The Six-Day War happened in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War was fought in 1973. See Alan Dershowitz' book, A Case for Israel (ISBN 0-471-46502-x) for general information on all three or Six Days of War by Michael B. Oren (ISBN 0-345-46192-4 for specific information on the war that has defined much of the modern Middle East.
[iv] According to James L. Roark et al. Writing in the History 17 B textbook, The American Promise Volume II: From 1865 (ISBN 0-312-39418-7) tells us that U.S. Presidential Middle East policy has differed as each man who has held our highest office (989-90). That is the one drawback that has characterized our form of government—long term friends and allies as well as enemies never can never truly coordinate plans longer than each four year presidential term.
[v] The article in the November 22nd, 2004 issue of Time that the monthly salary of the chairman was $200,000 a month which, he dutifully sent to his now widowed wife, Suha. Furthermore, the article by Matt Rees tells us that Arafat was, "guilty of skimming $2 million a month from the gasoline trade in the territories."(Rees 2004:46-7).
[vi] Barak under the auspices of President Clinton was ready to: 1) give the Palestinian people "between 94 and 96 percent of the West Bank;" 2) "all of the Gaza Strip;" 3) Israel would give up "1-to-3 percent of its land in exchange for 4-to-6 percent that it would retain for a security buffer;" and 4) Israel would satisfy the U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 through the return of "territories but not all territories." Barak was ready to give up still more in exchange for peace: 5) "Arab Jerusalem would be the capital of the Palestinian State as well as: 6) "control over all of East Jerusalem, the Arab Quarter of the Old City;" and 7) control over the ENTIRE TEMPLE MOUNT." (Source: Dershowitz 2003:109-110).
[vii] Do not misunderstand—the charge that the Jews are the new "fascists" or "Nazis" is nothing with which, I agree. What I am trying to do is to follow the reasoning behind the charge. The excesses of the ultraconservative Jews in their determination to forge ahead sans all criticisms is not only foolish, it is intransigent. When a group lends itself so admirably to the propaganda of the enemy, it has to be brought under control.
[viii] Martyrdom is as much of the Islamic faith as it was at its inception. Although Arafat was Sunni, he was no more religious than Saddam Hussein. Both were very secular and used religion as a prop. If anything, Arafat desired wealth and was willing to SACRIFICE himself in its pursuit.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please leave comments! Thanks! The American Institute of Culinary Politics-Elemental News of the Day!