Part 3 of a comprehensive study (published by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, LA, California, USA, 7 october 2005) about the lies and myths that fuels the propaganda against Israel and its existence as a jewish state. Because of the extensive length of this study, its published according to the 3 originally chapters.

Originally published by the freerepublic, 7 october 2005.

You can read a Dutch translation (nederlandse vertaling) of the original content (chapter 3) here, published in three parts: part 3, part 4, and part5.

—-

by David Meir-Levi

Part 3: THE QUESTION OF OCCUPATION AND THE SETTLEMENTS

Besides the refugee problem, the two most prominent issues in the Arab propaganda war against Israel are the alleged Jewish occupation of Arab lands and the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To peel away the myths enveloping these issues and proceed to the realities beneath, it is necessary to review their history within the context of the Arab war against Israel, which has been going on without interruption since the creation of Israel in 1948, and which includes the Arab hostility towards the Jews before that.

–

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Early Zionism

Zionist pioneers from the middle of the 19th century onward joined the local Jewish communities in rebuilding a Jewish homeland in what was then the Turkish Empire by purchasing land from the Turkish Crown and from Arab landowners (effendi). There was no invasion, no conquest, and no theft of Arab land – and certainly not of a land of Palestine, since the Arabs living in the region had been Turkish subjects for 400 years. Unarmed and possessing no military, the Jews bought so much land from Arabs that in 1892, a group of effendi sent a letter to the Turkish Sultan, requesting that he make it illegal for his subjects to sell land to the Jews. Their successors did the same thing, via a telegram, in 1915. Evidently, the very presence of Jews owning land in the Middle East – however legally acquired – was offensive to some.

zionism

It is indisputable that there was no theft, because no one com­plained of any. No Arabs were driven from their homes. In fact, as a demographic study published by Columbia University demonstrates⁵, the Arab population of the area grew tremendously during this period in part because of the economic development that the Jews helped to generate. Between 1514 AD and circa 1850, the Arab population of this region of the Turkish Empire was more or less static at about 340,000. It suddenly began to increase around 1855, and by 1947 the Arab population stood at about 1,300,000 — almost quadrupling in less than 100 years. The exact causes of this population rise are beyond the scope of this essay, but the causal correlation between this independently documented phenomenon and the Zionist enterprise is beyond rational argument.

Far from driving out any Arabs, stealing their land or ruining their economy, the work of the Jewish pioneers in the 19th and early 20th centuries actually enabled the Arab population to quadruple, the economy to enter the modern era, and the society to slough off the shackles of serfdom that typified the effendi-fellah (land-owner/serf) relationship of the Ottoman era. An Arab working in a Jewish factory or farming community could earn in a month what his father earned in a year eking out a living as a subsistence-level farmer using medieval technology. Arab infant mortality plummeted and longevity increased as the Jews shared their modern medical technology with their Arab neighbors.

Much of the land that the Zionists purchased was desert and swamp, uninhabited and deemed uninhabitable by the Arabs. Modern agrarian techniques instituted by the Jews and the blood and sweat of thousands of idealistic Zionists reclaimed that land and turned it into prime real estate with flourishing farms and rapidly growing com­munities sporting modern technology and a healthy market economy. As a result, Arab migrants poured into the region from surrounding states, with hundreds of thousands seeking a better life and greater economic opportunity. Based on the above, it is fair to suggest that a significant plurality, if not a majority, of Arabs living in Israel today owe their very existence to the Zionist endeavor.

sheikh yusuf al-Quradawi

Validation of this history, which is quite at variance with the standard Arab propaganda, comes from a surprising source. Sheikh Yousuf al-Qaradhawi, international Arab terrorist and lieutenant to Osama bin Laden, in a televised speech in May, 2005, chided his fol­lowers with the following words: “Unfortunately, we [Arabs] do not excel in either military or civil industries. We import everything from needles to missiles…How come the Zionist gang has managed to be superior to us, despite being so few? It has become superior through knowledge, through technology, and through strength. It has become superior to us through work. We had the desert before our eyes but we didn’t do anything with it. When they took over, they turned it into a green oasis. How can a nation that does not work progress? How can it grow?” (More academic validation can be found in Palestinian-born Professor Rashid Khalidi’s “Palestinian Identity”, in Kimmerling, B., and Migdal, J. The Palestinian People, and in the as yet unpublished doctoral thesis of Dr. Sandi Sufian, a Palestinian now doing post-doctoral work at the University of Chicago.)

It was precisely this success of the Zionist endeavor that aroused the fear and ire of Arab leaders. Zionist progress, technology, econo­my, and the Jews’ willingness to share this technology with their Arab neighbors radically threatened the medieval stranglehold of the effendi over the fellahin (peasantry). Turkish methods of insuring tranquil­ity under the Sultan were rather draconian. Consequently, as part of the Turkish Empire, the Arabs in the region did not wish to risk civil disturbance, and therefore maintained a stoic sufferance of the Jewish presence that some have interpreted as tolerance. But the British rule that followed the First World War was not so severe. When Britain took over the governance of British Mandatory Palestine (today the states of Israel and Jordan), Arab leaders discovered they had a much freer hand. Stoking religious hatred and fanning the flames of fellah resentment with lies about the Jews’ intent to destroy Islam, repre­sentatives of the leading effendi families led by the Hajj Amin el­Husseini began an Islamic jihad involving a series of pogroms against the Jews.

Peel Partition Plan

From 1919 to 1936, Arab violence against Jews expanded in scope and grew in brutality. The British did almost nothing to curtail it and sometimes abetted it. Lord Earl Peel led a commission of inquiry in 1936 with the goal of finding a solution to the seemingly endless violence. His suggestion was partition. Let the Jews have their state on the 15% of lands that they have purchased and redeemed. Let the Arabs have theirs on the remaining 85%. In other words, the very idea of partition became an agenda because the Arabs could not live peacefully beside Jews.

In 1922, Britain ceded all of the Palestine Mandate east of the Jordan River to the emir Abdullah. This became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, with a majority Palestinian population that by law permitted no Jew to enter. When offered their own state in 1937 on roughly 85% of British Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River, the Arab leaders chose war and terrorism. This was the “Great Arab Revolt” of 1937-1939. With World War II in the offing, Britain lost no time in brutally crushing the uprising.

palestine after 1922

Meanwhile, the pioneering Zionist endeavor continued with the purchase of more crown land from the British. It is important to note that according to international law, what had been crown land under the Turkish Empire was now legally crown land under the British Mandate. The disposition of that land through legal purchases was well within the rights of the British. It also conformed to the param­eters of international law. When the West emerged victorious from World War II, Zionist organizations owned about 28% of what is today Israel, and private Arab land ownership or British crown land accounted for the rest.

With the end of the war, Arab leadership again promoted violence and terrorism against Jewish settlements and against the British. The majority of Jewish leaders preached restraint and practiced the explo­ration of political solutions via the newly formed United Nations. A minority practiced terrorism against the British and violent reprisals against the Arabs.

UN Partition Plan

Sick of the violence and facing political crises growing out of eco­nomic problems following World War II, the British abandoned most of its empire and decided to place “the Palestine Question” into the hands of the United Nations. In 1947 several UN exploratory missions reached Lord Peel’s conclusion of a decade earlier. On November 29, 1947 the UN declared the existence of two states: a state for the Arabs on about 45% of the land, and the state of Israel for the Jews on about 55%. But more than half of the Jewish portion (60%) was the Negev desert, crown land largely unpopulated and believed to be worthless. The UN Partition Plan (UN Resolution # 181) created unwieldy boundaries between the two nascent states based upon the land ownership and population densities of the two groups.

The Arab states were members of the UN. Their membership presumably entailed a willingness to abide by majority decisions of the newly formed world body. But they did not.

In high-handed defiance of the UN partition plan, they launched a war of aggression which, by their own public rhetoric, was to be a war of annihilation. Their intent was not to correct some border dispute or to reclaim turf lost in an earlier battle. Their intention was

to destroy the newly created State of Israel, and to dispatch by whatever means necessary its 605,000 Jews.

To their everlasting chagrin, the Arab states lost their war of aggression. In losing, moreover, they lost much of the territory that the UN had designated for the state of Palestine. However, even this remainder of what would have been Palestine (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) was obliterated – by its two neighboring Arab states. Egypt maintained illegal occupation of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank. Both actions were in high-handed defiance of international law and UN resolutions 181 and 194. There was no Arab or Palestinian protest over this. Why? The only conclu­sion that can be drawn is that in 1949, the Palestinians didn’t consider themselves “Palestinians” but Arabs, and in fact the term “Palestine” was universally used to refer to the Jewish state.

To add to the Arabs’ embarrassment, Israel offered them in 1949 a formal peace treaty in exchange for which Israel would return much of the land conquered in the war and allow the repatriation of some substantive portion of the Arab refugees created by the war (Rhodes Armistice talks, February – July, 1949). Had the Arab nations been willing to accept the UN partition plan, or had they been willing to accept the Israeli peace offer, not only would a State of Palestine have existed since 1949, but there would never have been an Arab refugee problem.

However, the Arab response was: no peace. The refugees would return to their homes only when they could fly the flag of Palestine over the corpses of the Jews. Better Palestinians should rot in squalid refugee camps than that the Arabs should acknowledge a non-Moslem state in their midst. As in 1937, Arab leaders rejected the possibility of a Palestinian state in favor of continued aggression against Israel. It was not the creation of the State of Israel that caused the refugee and other subsequent problems; it was the war of annihilation waged by the Arab states that created the refugees and rejected the second opportunity for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Pre-1967 Terrorism Against Israel

From 1949 to 1956, Egypt waged a terror war against Israel, launching about 9,000 attacks from terrorist cells set up in the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip. The 1956 “Sinai campaign”, in which Israel defeated the Egyptian army, ended Egypt’s terror war, even though the United States forced Israel to return the Sinai to Egypt without a peace treaty. But the terror continued on other fronts.

In 1964, the Palestinian Liberation Organization was created – not to liberate Palestinians from Jordanian and Egyptian rule – but to begin a 40-year campaign of terror against Israel with the openly avowed goal of “pushing the Jews into the sea.” Sponsored first by Kuwait, and later by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and others, the PLO leaders declared unending war against Israel until all of “Palestine” was liberated, redeemed in “fire and blood”.

From 1949 to 1967 there were no Jewish settlements in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The “Palestine” that Arafat sought to “redeem” was not the West Bank or Gaza, where Palestinians were the abject subjects of Jordanian and Egyptian rule, but the entire State of Israel within its 1949 “green line” borders. It is instructive to read the original 1964 version of the PLO Covenant: Article 24. “This Organization (the PLO) does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area.”

Since the PLO’s original Covenant explicitly recognized Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip as belonging to other Arab states, the only “homeland” it sought to “liberate” in 1964 was the state that belonged to the Jews. Three years later in 1967, five Arab states – including Jordan — attacked Israel. As a result of Israel’s victory in the war Israel now occupied the West Bank having defeated the Jordanian aggressor, who had illegally annexed the West Bank 18 years earlier. The PLO’s response to these events was to revise its Covenant, which it did on July 17, 1968. It removed the operative language of Article 24, thereby asserting for the first time a “Palestinian” claim of sovereignty to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In other words, the Palestinian claim is asserted only against Jews.

The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the Egyptian control of the Gaza Strip were typified by brutal totalitarian repression. In the words of Arafat himself, in 1948 the Egyptians herded Palestinians into refugee camps, kept them behind barbed wire, sent in spies to murder the Palestinian leaders, and executed those who tried to flee. (Yassir Arafat in his authorized biography, “Arafat: Terrorist or Peace Maker”, by Alan Hart, 1982). There were no Palestinian protests of this oppression or behalf of any selfdetermination they felt they had been denied.

Belated Palestinian Nationalism

The reason why there was no agitation among Palestinians for their own national identity prior to 1967 is perfectly clear. The con­cept of Palestine as a nation and Palestinians as a separate people did not exist among the Arabs of the Turkish provinces that became British Mandatory Palestine after World War I. Despite the contorted, forced, and contrived narratives of apologists for the Palestinian war against Israel like Rashid Khalidi, Baruch Kimmerling and others, there was never any state called Palestine, no country inhabited by “Palestinians”, and before 1967 no concept of a separate political, cul­tural, or linguistic entity representing a defined group that could be identified by such an appellation.

In fact, the opposite is the case. Arab respondents to the UN’s 1947 inquiries argued that there never was, nor should there ever be, a Palestine. The area under discussion they claimed was historically part of southern Syria, and for centuries had been known as “balad esh-sham” (the country of Damascus). In fact, at that time, the term “Palestinian” was applied only to the Jews living in Mandatory Palestine. The Arabs of the region were known as “Arabs”.

In a March 31, 1977 interview with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Dagblad de Verdieping Trouw, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhse’in said: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

Even today, Syrian 5th Grade social studies textbooks show “Greater Syria” as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. There is no nation called Palestine. The concept of “Palestinians” as Arabs living for millennia in “historic Palestine” is a fiction created for the politi­cal and military purposes described by Zahir Muhse’in. This latter day frenzy of Palestinian agitations for national self-determination is simply the faux mantle of respectability behind which genocidal Arab terrorism can be perpetrated against Israel with the support of international do-gooders and “idealists.” After the Holocaust, Western liberals cannot look kindly upon genocidal terrorism; but they can embrace warmly and enthusiastically the deep and heartfelt yearnings of an oppressed people struggling to be free. Hence, Arafat’s terrorist propagandists needed to invent the lies of Palestinian National Identity and Israeli occupation and oppression.

greater syria plan

The Six-Day War of 1967

Contrary to current Arab propaganda, but congruent with all news accounts contemporary to the events, Israel was the victim of Arab genocidal aggression in the 1967 War. On May 15, 1967, Egypt demanded that the UN peacekeeping forces, in place since the Sinai Campaign, evacuate at once. UN Secretary General U-Thant, for reasons never fully clarified, complied at once. Then, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, blocking the Israeli port of Eilat for shipping, and moved two tank battalions and 150,000 troops right up to Israel’s western border. A military pact with Syria and Jordan and illegal invasion of Israel’s air space for surveillance over-flights of the Israeli atomic reactor in Dimona rounded out the threats. These were five casus belli: actions defined in international law as so threatening to a sovereign state that each one creates a legitimate cause for defensive military response. Had Israel retaliated with lethal force after any one of these five, its military action would have been completely legal per international law, as legitimate defensive response to existential threats from an aggressor.

However, Israel did not retaliate immediately. It first tried politi­cal negotiations, but its complaints to the UN went unanswered. Its reminders to President Johnson that the United States had guaranteed in 1957 to intervene if the Straits of Tiran were ever closed, or if Egypt ever re-militarized the Sinai, fell on deaf ears. President Johnson was too heavily involved in the Vietnam war to consider American military action elsewhere, even though President Eisenhower, when he forced PM Ben Gurion to retreat from the Sinai after the phenom­enally successful Sinai Campaign in 1956, had promised America’s eternal vigilance that Israel would not again face a military threat from Egypt.

After three weeks of watching the Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian forces grow in size and strength on its borders, Israel tried one last diplomatic action. Via the UN commander of the peace-keeping forc­es in Jerusalem, Colonel Od Bul (a Norwegian), Israel’s government sent a written message to King Hussein of Jordan: if you do not invade Israel, Israel will not invade the West Bank. Jordan’s King supercil­iously tossed the note back to Colonel Od Bul and walked away.

On Monday, June 5, 1967, after receiving military intelligence that Egypt was within hours of launching an invasion via the Gaza Strip, Israel launched its defensive pre-emptive strike, an air attack that destroyed the air forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria while they were still on the ground. With the control of the skies firmly in Israel’s hand, its armor and infantry put Egyptian forces to flight, reaching the Suez Canal within two days.

Despite Israel’s warning, King Hussein of Jordan began an artil­lery bombardment of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities along the Green Line. After more than a day of bombardment, with scores of Israelis dead, hundreds wounded, and millions of dollars of dam­ages, Israel sent a second message to the Hashemite king: if you stop the bombardment now, we will consider it your politically necessary ‘salvo of honor’; and we will not retaliate. This message was sent via the Romanian embassy, from its West Jerusalem (Israeli) ambassador to its East Jerusalem (Jordanian) ambassador. King Hussein ignored the warning and launched an infantry invasion of Jewish Jerusalem. It was only then that Israel responded with its own invasion of the West Bank.

Israel soldiers after the battle for East-Jerusalem

After almost a week of Syria’s constant artillery bombardment of Israeli towns and villages in the Galilee, Israel conquered the Golan Heights, destroyed the Syrian artillery, and drove the Syrian army back to within 40 kilometers of Damascus.

Israel did not invade Egypt beyond the Suez Canal, although its forces could have advanced almost unopposed to Cairo. It did not cross the Jordan River, although the Jordan Legion was in disarray, as some troops had tossed their boots and rifles to more easily swim to the east bank. Nor did it continue its advance from the Golan Heights to Damascus, which it could have easily done in the wake of a ter­rified and decimated Syrian army. Israel stopped its advance on all three fronts after it had achieved its military objectives: the destruc­tion of the armies that threatened its existence, and the establishment of defensible borders.

International Law and Israeli Sovereignty

Even one of the most critical of Israel’s historians, Professor Avi Schlaim, acknowledges that Israel was the victim of Arab aggression in the Six Day War. This is a crucial point in regard to the issue of Israeli settlements in and sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. International law is very clear. Had Israel been the aggressor, its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip would have been illegal, as would all future expansion of Israeli population into these territories.

However, as the victim of aggression, Israel’s legal position is exactly the opposite. The legal disposition of territories conquered in a defensive war can be determined only by a peace treaty between the belligerents. If such a peace treaty is absent, the continued sovereignty and economic activities of the victim of aggression over its newly won territories is completely legal as long as such activity does not unfavorably prejudice the indigenous inhabitants. In fact Israel’s sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip was beneficial, as we shall see, until their administration was turned over to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Agreements.

Immediately after the war, Israel offered to return conquered ter­ritory in exchange for a formal peace. The Arab nations rejected this offer, as they rejected similar offers after the previous Arab-initiated wars. Israel could legally have annexed all the newly won territories, but chose not to because it expected that eventually the aggressor nations would come to their senses and want their land back, and Israel would return some of these territories to their former occupiers in exchange for peace.

begin en sadat in 1979

Israel did exactly this with Egypt, returning all of Sinai at the Camp David I accords in 1979. In these accords Egyptian leader Anwar es-Sadat refused to accept the Gaza Strip back, preferring that the Palestinians who lived there remain under Israeli sovereignty. When Jordan agreed to a peace treaty in 1994, King Hussein spe­cifically excluded the West Bank from consideration, because by then 96% of Palestinians in the area were under the rule of the Palestinian Authority, and Hussein conceded that he had no legal claim to the area or its Arab population.

In sum, Israel is the only known country in all of history to come into existence via legal and beneficial land development (as opposed to the almost universal method of conquest). Israel’s victory in the 1948 war and in the 1967 war, in which it was the victim of genocidal aggression, and the refusal of Arab nations to join it in peace negotiations, give Israel the legal right to maintain its sovereignty over its newly won territories, and to develop those territories in any manner that is not prejudicial to the well-being of the indigenous civilians. Had Arab leaders been amenable to peace with Israel, there could have been a Palestinian state in 1937, and again in 1947, and again in 1949; and there would never have been an Arab refugee problem. Had Arab leadership in 1967 and again in 2000 been amenable to peace with Israel, there would never have been a continued Israeli sovereignty over the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

With this historical framework in place, one can understand the real issues behind the controversy over Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the legal status of the settlements.

–

THE SETTLEMENTS

There are five types of settlements: A. Agrarian settlements for military purposes manned mostly by soldiers; B. Settlements of Jews returning to sites occupied by Jews prior to 1948 (Hebron, Gush Etzion, Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem); C. Expanding suburbs of Israeli cities on or near the “Green Line;” D. Settlements unrelated to the previous three types; E. Illegal rogue settlements

settlements westbank

A. Settlements for Military Purposes

Agrarian settlements manned by IDF soldiers were established soon after the war along what the IDF felt were crucial corridors of defense, especially along the Jordan river, near the “Green Line,” in the Golan Heights, and near Gaza. Because Egypt, Syria and Jordan remained belligerent states for decades after the war, and because the PLO was actively trying to develop bases for terrorism in the newly conquered territories, and because Israel had previously been invaded across these territories, these settlements were intended primarily to serve a strategic military defensive purpose.

The Alon plan, developed by General Yigal Alon shortly after the war, envisioned a series of these military-agrarian settlements (referred to as “nahal” in Hebrew) protecting strategic areas along the Jordan river (it is important to recall that the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan was in a de iure state of war with Israel until 1994) and across parts of the West Bank where surveillance and the potential for rapid military deployment were deemed essential for security purposes.

In several cases, where Palestinian farmers utilized the Israeli court system to lodge complaints that the army was unnecessarily taking land without proper military purpose, the Israeli High Court of Justice decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The army site at Beth El (near Ramallah) is the best-known case, and probably one of the few cases in all of world history where the legal system of the victorious country decided in favor of the defeated, contrary to the security­ related demands of the army. The IDF was forced to move its base about ten kilometers further west, to accommodate the land claims of the local Palestinians.

allon plan

B. Settlements of Jews Returning To Their Pre-1948 Homes

Settlement of civilian Israelis in the West Bank began shortly after the 1967 war, with a small group of Orthodox Jews setting up a few households in the former Jewish section of Hebron, followed by a larger re-settling of Jews in the rapidly reconstructed Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem. Jews had lived in Hebron almost continuously since the days of Joshua, 3100 years ago, and were expelled only during the horrific Arab pogroms of 1929 in which hundreds were slaughtered. Jewish habitation in Jerusalem had a similar millennia-long history, with the 1948 war and the massacre of about half of the population of the Jewish Quarter terminating Jewish presence there.

hebron massacre of jews

Later, Jews resettled the villages of the Kfar Etzion area (aka Gush Etzion) southwest of Bethlehem. Since this area had been extensively settled and developed in the early part of the 20th century by Zionist pioneers, and mobs of Arab irregulars had massacred most of the Jews of these villages during the 1948 war, the return of Israelis to these sites created additional Type B settlements.

C: Settlements Expanding Suburbs of Israeli Cities On Or Near The “Green Line”

Unoccupied areas around Jerusalem and to the east of Kfar Saba and Netania (near Tel Aviv) and to the northeast of Petah Tiqvah were used as sites for major building projects that created low cost housing for the expanding populations of the Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv areas. In most cases, the land utilized for these projects was Jordanian ‘Crown Land’, land to which no individual could lay claim of private owner­ship. In the absence of Jordan’s willingness to enter into peace nego­tiations after the war, Israel’s expropriation of these unoccupied areas was legal in as much as Israel’s sovereignty, having been created via defensive actions against an aggressor nation (Jordan), was legal.

In cases where West Bank Arabs legally owned land that Israel wanted for these expansion projects, Israel bought the land at fair market prices. Land sale to Israel was fairly active throughout the decades after the Six-day war. So much so that when the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994, Arafat declared that sale of land to Jews was a capital offense; and as a result, Palestinian families who had benefited from these sales were suddenly in mortal danger and some were forced to flee the West Bank.

The rapid growth in Jerusalem’s Jewish population after the war presented the Israeli government with both a problem and a solution of considerable political valence. Areas of dense Jewish settlement were developed in order to accommodate this growth, and these settlements were used to surround Jerusalem, such that the 1948-1967 phenom­enon of a “Jerusalem Corridor” (where Jerusalem was surrounded on three-and-a-half sides by hostile Arab towns and villages with access to other Israeli areas restricted to only one narrow road) would not be re-created in the context of a future peace agreement with the Arabs. The outlying areas (French Hill, Ammunition Hill, Gilo, Ma’aleh Adumim, Har Homah, inter alia) were turned into hi-rise suburbs that expanded the city’s perimeter and accommodated the burgeoning population. Of these, only Gilo was built on privately owned land. A Christian family in Beit Jalla sold the hilltop site to the municipality of Jerusalem in 1974.

D: Settlements Unrelated to the Previous Three Types

Over time, religious and right wing political pressure supported the creation of settlements elsewhere in the West Bank and Gaza. Under Prime Ministers Begin and Rabin, these settlements prolifer­ated. Often they were founded near ancient Jewish holy sites, such as Joseph’s Tomb near Nablus (Biblical Shechem).

Arab spokespersons claim that these settlements, some of which were built well inside the West Bank or Gaza areas, stole land from Arab farmers. Israel claims that most land used for these developments was unoccupied and un-owned, thus qualifying as ‘Crown Land’ on which Israel had full legal right to build and develop. Where privately owned land was needed for settlement expansion, Israel claims to have purchased that land from its legal owners at fair market values.

There was considerable debate in the Israeli government and society at large as to whether allowing these Type D settlements to be developed was productive in the context of Israel’s long-term goal of achieving peace. Ultimately, the government felt that creating “uvdot bashetah” (facts in the field – settlements that were there, liter­ally in concrete, with buildings, populations, agrarian and industrial activities, connected by efficient infra-structure to the pre-1967 Israeli areas) would be useful as bagaining chips in future negotiations.

E: Illegal Rogue Settlements

Illegal Rogue Settlements were set up by break-away settlers, often contrary to IDF and/or government instructions, sometimes on privately owned Palestinian land. Palestinian complaints about such illegal land grabs have been adjudicated in the Israeli court system with decisions not infrequently in favor of the Palestinians. These settlements, whether on illegally taken land or not, are considered illegal by many in Israel. Some have been forcibly dismantled. This is a very emotional issue in Israel, with mostly orthodox Jews demanding that all Jews be allowed to settle anywhere in the Promised Land (especially anywhere in the region where Abraham lived: i.e., the West Bank from Shechem/Nablus to Hebron). Anti-settlement sentiment among Israelis (especially the non-religious) is spurred in large part by these rogue sites; and it is almost exclusively this type of settlement on the West Bank that Prime Minister Sharon has considered dismantling even before peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

The Legality of the Settlements

Anti-settlement spokespersons (Arab, Israeli and other) have repeatedly branded the settlements as illegal in accordance with the 4th Geneva Convention and international law. However, even a superficial review of the relevant elements of international law dem­onstrates that this interpretation of the Geneva Convention is a typical example of Orwellian “doublespeak”. It is precisely international law, the Geneva Convention, and relevant UN resolutions that define these settlements as legal.

According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the prohibition of exiling conquered populations and settling populations from the conqueror’s territory into conquered territories pertains to territory conquered in an offensive war. These sections of the Convention were written to deter future actions like those of the Nazis in Eastern Europe during WWII. Since Israel acquired sovereignty over the territories in a defensive war, it is highly questionable whether these prohibitions apply. The fact that the belligerent opponent (Jordan) remained at war (until 1994) meant that the conquered population was potentially hostile. Moreover, Israel never exiled any Arabs from anywhere in the territories (except in 1992 when it deported about 400 terrorists to south Lebanon in an attempt to stop terror activities).

On the contrary, because of Israel’s policies of ‘open bridges’ across the Jordan (although Jordan was still in a state of declared war with Israel), Arabs migrated into Israel in vast numbers, and the Arab population of the West Bank tripled, from about 650,000 in 1967 to more than 2,000,000 in 1994, with a commensurate increase in Arab settlements (some estimates suggest that as many as 260 new Arab villages or expansions of existing sites occurred during this time).

It is obvious therefore, that Israeli settlement activity not only did nothing to infringe on the well being of the indigenous population; rather, that activity actually created the beneficial economic environ­ment into which hundreds of thousands of Arabs could integrate.

UN Charter

Regarding territory conquered in a defensive action, the Charter of the League of Nations (the same one which gave Britain the right to establish a Mandatory Government over Palestine and which declared that British Mandatory Palestine was to be the homeland of the Jewish people) indicates that the disposition of such territory will be part of the peace treaty between the warring parties. In the absence of such a treaty, the disposition of these territories remains in dispute. Such territories should be referred to as “disputed territories,” not “occupied territories.” Their continued occupation by the defensive party is legal. Since the wars in 1948 and 1967 were defensive, Israel’s occupation of territories beyond the l947 partition boundaries and 1949 armistice boundaries is completely legal. The Charter of the United Nations accepts, and with no authority to change it, the Charter of the League of Nations. So the League of Nations Charter is still international law, and offers a congruent and rational balance to the 4th Geneva Convention (i.e., the Charter describes the rights of a nation occupy­ing territory in a defensive action, and the Convention describes the limitations placed upon a nation occupying territory in an offensive action). Both are valid under international law.

It is also legal for the defensive party maintaining occupation in the absence of a peace treaty to take necessary measures to main­tain security. Thus Nahal settlements (for military reasons) are legal according to international law.

International law is also clear that populations that had been dis­possessed from their ancestral homes by an offensive action have the right to re-settle their homes when a successful defensive action re­captures the land from which they were driven out. Thus the return of Jews to Hebron, Gush Etzion, and the Jewish Quarter is also legal under international law.

UN Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) makes it clear that the purpose of the resolution is to create a just and lasting peace, with guarantees for the territorial inviolability, mutually recognized bor­ders, and political independence of every state in the area. According to Eugene Rostow, one of the drafters of 242, the plain meaning of the resolution is that Israel’s administration of the West Bank and Gaza is completely legal until a just and lasting peace is achieved. Such administration, in the absence of a peace treaty, and in the face of continued hostility from Arab nations and terrorist groups, can include the development of unoccupied segments for housing a grow­ing population. Such activity is not the same as transporting popula­tion to the territory for resettlement. So the third type of settlement (C) is also legal.

Type D Settlements are more complex. Nothing in the Geneva Convention prohibits voluntary development of the disputed territo­ries. What is prohibited is forced deportations and organized displace­ment of original populace by a forced settlement of the conquering population. So, to the degree that settlements of Type D are a func­tion of voluntary Israeli settling in areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip without the sequestering of Palestinian land and the removal of Palestinian population, these Type D settlements are legal. Moreover, since the West Bank and Gaza were never legally part of any sovereign nation (they were part of British Mandatory Palestine till November 29, 1947, were intended by the UN to be part of a Palestinian State, and were over-run and illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt in the 1948 war, in stark and defiant violation of the UN partition plan, UN resolutions 181 and 194, and international law), Israel’s occupation of these territories after the 1967 war does not violate the legal claims of any nation.

However, since some privately owned Palestinian land was taken by government fiat, and it could be argued that either by complicity or by design the Israeli government sponsored these settlements (thus making it more of a government plan rather than a voluntary settle­ment), it seems fair to say that Type D settlements, although legal according to the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant UN resolu­tions, may be in a gray area morally.

Rogue settlements (Type E) are palpably illegal. Israeli govern­ment officials have referred to them as “rogue” settlements, IDF forces have dismantled some, and Prime Minister Sharon has targeted some for a similar fate.

Impact of Settlements On Arab Population

The impact of Israeli settlements (excluding rogue settlements) has been almost exactly the opposite of what the Arab propaganda claims.

It is important to note that from 1967 to 1992, the population and economy of the West Bank grew substantially. The standard of living of the Palestinians, as well as the average per capita income, increased almost exponentially. This was in part due to the Israeli “Marshall Plan”, which expanded the infra-structure, modernized roads and the supplies of water, electricity, and sewerage, and made 20th century medical care available. Telephone and radio technology was upgraded to 20th century levels. Economic progress was also due in part to the integration of the Palestinian workforce into the Israeli economy by the employment of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in a wide variety of Israeli business and agricultural endeavors.

The growth of tourism throughout the West Bank was a further boost to the area’s economy. The population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip more than tripled from 1967 to 1994, with an Arab popu­lation of about 950,000 in 1967 growing to more than 3,000,000 by 1994. Seven universities, some sponsored in part by Jewish donors and the Israeli government, came into being where only three teacher­training institutions had existed before.

Rather than displacing Palestinians, the Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank stimulated substantial growth and improvement. It has been noted that when an Israeli settlement of any of the first 4 types was erected, areas around it that were hitherto uninhabited became foci for Palestinian shops selling agricultural goods and cottage industry wares to the Israelis. Later, Palestinian houses followed the shops.

Moreover, during the decades after 1967, there were no road­blocks or lock-downs or curfews (except on rare occasions when the Israeli military or central intelligence agencies learned of the presence of terrorists in a specific village or town). West Bank and Gaza Strip Arabs shopped in Tel Aviv, and Jews shopped in east Jerusalem and Ramallah.

It is only since 1994, when 96% of Palestinians living in Israel came under the autonomous and independent control of the Palestinian National Authority, that the economies of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been crippled and the lives of the Palestinians wrecked by the Authority’s despotic and terrorist rule. The West Bank’s GDP in 2003 was about one-tenth of what it was in 1992. Only because of Arafat’s terror war was Israel forced to implement now infamous and wildly exaggerated harsh measures to stop terror attacks and protect civilian lives.

It is also important to note that the so-called “apartheid roads” did not exist prior to Arafat’s 1994 ascent to power, nor are they apartheid. During the decades from 1967 on, Israelis and Arabs used the same roads, many of which ran as main streets through the towns and villages of the West Bank, bringing in millions of tourist dol­lars to hitherto impoverished small-town Arab merchants. Only after Arafat began his terror war, and Israelis driving through Arab towns found themselves in mortal danger, did Israel build the “Israelis only” (not “Jews only”) roads. Rather than take punitive measures against Arab offenders who murdered or injured Israeli motorists (Jewish, Christian, and Moslem), the government decided instead to create this by-pass system so that Israelis could reach West Bank and Gaza Strip destinations without exposing themselves to terrorist attacks.

In sum, until Arafat began his terror war, the growth of the Israeli population in the West Bank and Gaza, and the expansion of Israeli villages and towns in those territories, was highly beneficial economi­cally for the West Bank and Gaza Arab populations, did not entail significant loss of Arab privately owned land, offered legal recourse to the rare cases of unfair expropriation, and was accompanied by a far, far greater growth of Arab population and settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Role of the Settlements in the Peace Process

The role of the settlements in the context of the current conflict, and in the contentious issue of applying the “Road Map” to future peace negotiations, is perhaps the most complex and difficult issue to deal with. This is precisely because Arab propaganda has been so effective in establishing as axiomatic that the settlements are:

a.).    Illegal

b).    A symptom of Israel’s intent on conquest of Palestinian land and are thus inherently an obstacle to peace

c.)    A harbinger of Israel’s permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and hence make territorial compromise impossible

d).    Signal Israel’s inherently obvious unwillingness to negotiate a fair peace.

Therefore, it will be most useful to look at these Arab contentions, and see how they correspond to historical reality.

Are the settlements illegal? We have already seen that they are not.

Are the settlements an obstacle to peace? From 1949-1967 there were no settlements in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Nor was there peace. Arab belligerence was unrelated to West Bank and Gaza settle­ments. The settlements to which the Arabs objected at that time were Tel Aviv, Haifa, Hadera, Afula, etc.

In June, 1967, immediately after the Six Day War, and before there were any Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel proposed its dramatic peace initiative both at the UN and in sub rosa talks with Jordan. This initiative was rejected by all Arab states and the PLO at the Khartoum Conference in August-September, 1967. The obstacle to peace was the very existence of Israel, not settlements in the West Bank.

In 1979, as part of the accord with Egypt, Israeli settlements in Sinai were evacuated. In the context of a peace treaty, settlements are negotiable, can be, and were, dismantled.

In 1979, as part of the accord with Egypt, Israel froze settlement expansion for three months, in order to encourage entry of Jordan into the Egypt-Israel peace process. Jordan refused. The freezing of settle­ments did not stimulate peaceful interaction. Arafat (then engaged in creating a terrorist state in south Lebanon) was invited to join Egypt at the peace talks, and this settlement freeze was intended to encour­age his participation. He refused. The existence of settlements in Sinai did not interfere with the Israel-Egypt peace accords; and the freeze on settlement activities did not encourage Jordan or the PLO to enter into peace accords.

In 1994, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, while settle­ments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were growing in size and increasing in number. The existence and expansion of the settlements in no way impaired the peace process with Jordan.

Do the settlements make territorial compromise impossible? The accords discussed at Madrid, Wye, Oslo and Taba all include the acknowledgement that settlements (a few, some, many, prob­ably not all) will be dismantled in the context of a peace agreement. Those accords were discussed while settlements were expanding. Settlements did not impede negotiation then.

Currently, about 250,000 Jews live in a total of 144 communities scattered through the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 80% of them could be brought within Israel’s pre-1967 borders with only a very minor re­arranging of “green line” boundaries.

Part of Barak’s offer to Arafat in 2000 was the exchange of land such that the Palestinians would be compensated for the small num­ber of settlements that would not be dismantled by the ceding of Israeli land within the pre-1967 boundaries to the Palestine National Authority. This offer was in addition to the approximately 95% of all the disputed land in the West Bank and 100% of the territory in Gaza which were to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Arafat rejected this offer, much to the surprise and chagrin of President Clinton.

Does Israel’s violation of international accords by building the settlements show Israel’s unwillingness to negotiate a fair peace? In regard to the Geneva Convention and UN Resolution 242, we have seen that the settlements do not constitute violations of international law. Therefore, this argument is a red herring.

The Camp David accords called for a 3-month moratorium on settlements. Prime Minister Menahem Begin kept this agreement.

The Oslo Accords say nothing about settlements. It was tacitly and informally agreed upon that a moratorium on settlements would be one of 16 “confidence building” measures that Israel and the PNA would undertake. The provision about not changing the “status” of the territories refers to the agreement that neither side would unilaterally annex the areas (or declare them an independent state). In the pres­ence of glaring, overt, and provocative violations of every one of the Oslo Accords by the Palestine National Authority almost immediately after its signing, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government felt itself under no obligation to maintain the tacit informal agreement. Since the Palestine National Authority was not building confidence by end­ing terrorist attacks (it was actually behind them), why should Israel compromise its security and position for future negotiation?

While Israel has built a total of 144 settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, more than 260 new Palestinian settlements have been constructed. These serve as testimony to the flourishing of the West Bank’s economy and the growth of Palestinian population under Israeli control (1967-1994), contrary to the Arab allegations that Israel has perpetrated genocide and crippled the economy of the West Bank. By what logic would anyone suggest that these Palestinian settlements are any less a threat to negotiations or a change of status of the ter­ritories than are the Israeli ones?

Summing up: All the settlements except those of the rogue variety are legal. Their growth and expansion have contributed substantially to the economic improvement of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. When there were no settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, no territorial compromises or peace settlements were reached. Later ter­ritorial compromises and peace agreements have been reached despite the existence of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel’s settlements violate no international accords. Therefore, it is irrational to suggest that Israeli settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip prevent peace. Rather, it is the unwillingness of the Palestine National Authority to control the Arab terror groups, to stop the incitement and to negotiate honestly, that makes compromise impossible.

What About Unilateral Withdrawl?

Part of the intent in creating “uvdot bashetakh” (facts in the field) was to create “bargaining chips” for future negotiations. They are one of the issues that Israel will negotiate. That is clearly what Netanyahu and Barak had in mind when they encouraged settlement expansion following Arafat’s violations of the Oslo Accords. There is no rational justification for a one-sided curtailment of population growth when the other side maintains a state of war despite the agreement to curtail violence.

The security needs that prompted the Alon Plan and militarily warranted settlements still exist; especially in light of the surge of terror activities sponsored openly by Hamas and at least 9 other ter­ror groups operating in Israel. In addition, these needs exist in light of many terrorist factions and Arab states that refuse to consider any peace with Israel, that continue to perpetrate Jew-hatred in media and education, and that continue to promulgate the goals of Hamas and other terror groups for the total destruction of Israel. The settlements and IDF presence in the major Arab population clusters of the West Bank reduce substantially the ability of terror groups to successfully launch their attacks. Unilateral withdrawal enhances the ability of the terror groups to wage terror war.

Any unilateral dismantling of settlements is likely to be inter­preted by the Palestine National Authority and terrorist leadership as a victory for terrorism. This, in fact, is exactly what has happened following Prime Minister Sharon’s decision to unilaterally dismantle Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and at the northern part of the West Bank. Terrorist spokespersons rejoice in the apparent success of their terror activity, which they claim is the real motivator for Sharon’s decision, while official Palestinian spokespersons suggest that the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is just another Israeli deception. According to their logic, instead of being a real conces­sion to the Palestinian demand for national self-determination, the unilateral withdrawal is actually aimed at distracting the world and the Palestinian leadership so that Sharon can strengthen his hold on the West Bank and continue to expand Jewish settlement there.

After Oslo, Netanyahu abandoned any thought of a settlement freeze because the Palestine National Authority made clear its intent to disregard Oslo and pursue a policy of unrelenting terror. It is believed by some that part of his purpose in creating more settlements was to send Arafat a clear signal: ‘If you keep doing your anti-Oslo behav­ior, the area that you are likely to end up with as a Palestinian state is going to get smaller and smaller.’ Sounds logical, especially since a military response may have been justified but would have caused world outrage. It didn’t work, even though a number of Palestinian intellectuals and political leaders (most notably, Elyas Freij, mayor of Bethlehem, quoted in the Washington Post in l991) publicly advocated negotiation because the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank made it clear that “time is on Israel’s side now”.

It did not work, probably, because Arafat never intended to negoti­ate. He always intended to perpetrate his long-dreamed final solution of the total destruction of Israel. In his 90-minute cell-phone speech to a Lebanese PLO radio station on April 14, 2002 (from his bedroom of his headquarters in Ramallah which Israel had surrounded and partially destroyed in Operation Defensive Shield), he outlined his strategy. With the help of other Arab states, with the success of Arab propaganda to gradually weaken Israel’s legitimacy in the eyes of the world such that UN forces could be deployed to assist the Palestinians and impede the Israelis in a future battle, and with the United States Israel’s only foul-weather friend having moral and political difficulty providing assistance to what was now defined as a rogue nation, the terror armies and their allies could use the West Bank as a launching pad for the great final Jihad against Israel. Arafat’s intent as expressed in that speech has been corroborated by the Israeli destruction of major arms smuggling networks handling hundreds of tons of illegal weaponry and munitions since 2001, most recently the 50 tons of weapons on the ship, the Karine A, and the scores of smuggling tun­nels from Sinai to the Gaza Strip. If this buildup of terror is allowed to continue, it will ultimately compromise the welfare of the entire free world as we know it.

There is no rational justification for a one-sided settlement com­promise when the other side maintains a state of war. Unilateral with­drawal enhances the ability of the terrorists to wage terror war. In light of the unrelenting commitment of terror groups and Mahmoud Abbas’ frequent public statements commending the terror groups, defining their casualties as martyrs, and vowing to never use force against them, it is irrational to suggest that further Israeli concessions will generate a Palestinian willingness to reciprocate. In fact, the opposite has happened. The failure of Camp David II was due in large part to Arafat’s strategy of pocketing Barak’s concessions, making no sub­stantive concessions in return, and then demanding more from Barak (see Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace, 2005).

In August 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza strip and removed all Israeli settlements from the area, along with all 8,500 Jewish settlers. In addition, Israel dismantled settlements at the north­ern part of the West Bank. Israel had made an historically unprec­edented concession in an attempt to jump-start the peace process, and demonstrate to the Palestinians that it was willing to trade land for peace. Yet, there was no movement on the part of any Palestinian leader to reciprocate. Instead there were terrorist leaders on Arab TV, radio, newspapers, all declaring that the withdrawal was a great victory for Arab terrorism, and that the terrorist attacks must escalate so that Israel could be annihilated and all of Palestine “liberated.” In other words, the problem is not the settlements. They were dismantled. The problem is the existence of Jews in the land between the Jordan River and the sea, and the commitment of the Arab terrorist leadership to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its people.

gaza: homeland of militant Muslims

CONCLUSION:

The most famous recent episode of the rejection of the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state and the resolution of the refugees problem was in the year 2000 when the PA Chairman Arafat rebuffed President Clinton’s most generous offer and initiated a cruel intifada against Israel. At that time, the Israeli Prime Minister Barak, hop­ing to end the protracted conflict with the Arabs, accepted the offer despite the fact that it would have forced Israel to make extremely painful concessions.

Most Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are legal and violate no international laws or relevant UN resolutions. Most do not involve the theft of any Palestinian land. The settlement movement has provided enormous benefit to the Arabs of those areas and fueled a tripling of the Arab population and a skyrocketing West Bank economy — until the onset of Arafat’s rule. Settlements do not create stumbling blocks to peace or hindrances to peace negotiations. They can be, and have been, dismantled in the context of negotiations with an honest peace partner. Concessions about settlements should be made only in the context of negotiations, which can begin only after Palestinian leadership stops the violence, ends the terror war, and ends the hate speech, hate preach, and hate teach that have permeated Palestinian society since 1994.

Now that, painfully and unilateraly, Israel has relinquished all the settlements in the Gaza Strip and in the Northern part of the West Bank, it will be even easier for the Palestinians to demonstrate if they intend to proceed toward peace. Their actions so far are not very promising.

There is no issue relating to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank that could not be settled honorably to mutual satisfaction at the negotiating table between honest peace partners negotiating in good faith. The question of the remaining settlements is a matter for final status negotiations.

The simple fact is that no sovereign state would ever be expected to do otherwise.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli currently living in Palo Alto, California. He holds a BA from Johns  Hopkins University, and an MA in Near Eastern Studies from Brandeis University. He taught Archaeology and Near  Eastern History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and at the University of Tel Aviv in the 60’s and 70’s, during  which time he completed his service in the Israeli military. Upon returning to the USA, Mr. Meir-Levi has worked as a     professional Jewish educator, most recently in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Mr. Meir-Levi is the Director of Research and Education at the Israel Peace Initiative (IPI), a grass-roots not-for-profit organization in the San Francisco Bay area working to educate the American public and its leaders in to the history of the Arab-Israel conflict and realistic options for resolution. For more information about IPI, see: Israel Peace Initiative.

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Big Lies: demolishing the myths of the propaganda war against Israel (part 1)
2. Big Lies: demolishing the myths of the propaganda war against Israel (part 2)
3. The World’s Latest Anti-Israel Lies, Injustice, Bias, Prejudice, Hatred and Hypocrisy

Khaled Mashaal makes it clear that Hamas is determined to continue the path of “resistance” (i.e., terrorism) and that “other statements are political maneuvers.” He reveals that Hamas uses most of its financial resources in the Gaza Strip for military purposes rather than rebuilding.

1. Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, recently revealed  the movement’s political positions. On November 12, meeting with a number of senior participants at a conference of Arab parties in Damascus, he repeatedly stressed that Hamas would continue the path of “resistance” (i.e., terrorism), and noted that most of Hamas’ funds and efforts in the Gaza Strip were invested in military preparations.

2. The main points he made were the following (according to the Filisteen al-’An website):

a) Hamas will never recognize Israel and will not abandon the “resistance:” “We will not recognize Israel, we will not give up the resistance, we cling to every inch of Palestinian soil, other statements are political maneuvers.” (In Arabic, Munawara)

b) Renewal of terrorism in Judea and Samaria: Opting for a new intifada is difficult but “the jihad continues until Judgment Day.” Hamas was forced to stop the resistance [i.e., terrorism] in the West Bank, its [cessation] was not a decision of the movement. It will take time to renew the “resistance” because objectively, the necessary conditions on the ground do not yet exist.

c) Proposing the establishment of a Palestinian state with the borders of 1967: Khaled Mashaal said that his statements in the past, according to which Hamas was prepared to accept a temporary solution of a Palestinian state with the borders of 1967, were meant to create a basis for [political] activity and to eliminate excuses for holding a grudge against Hamas. As far as Hamas is concerned, its political view is that “the Oslo accord is dead” and Palestinians have to strengthen their capabilities  [their “cards”], the most potent of which is “the resistance.”

d) Most of Hamas’ efforts in the Gaza Strip are invested in  military preparations: “On the surface, [statements in the Gaza Strip] refer to reconciliation [between Hamas and Fatah] and rebuilding, however, what is not revealed is that most of Hamas’ funds and efforts are invested in the resistance and military preparations… We are intent on the resistance.”

e) Hamas, which has financial difficulties, needs contributions for the “resistance:” Khaled Mashaal urged the Arab parties to enlist contributions in preparation for the next stage of the “resistance” [i.e., anti-Israeli terrorism], since Hamas is in financial straits. He warned against conditioning financial support for  Hamas on the “resistance’s” carrying out terrorist [attacks] because, he said, “the money is invested in preparing for escalating the ‘resistance’.”

Khaled Mashaal (right), damascus; al-'An website nov 2009

Conclusions

3. Khaled Mashaal’s remarks reflect Hamas’ true priorities, the most important of which is rebuilding its military infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, which was damaged by Operation Cast Lead, in preparation for the renewal of military-terrorist attacks [“the resistance”] against Israel. Hamas’ priorities are expressed by their investing most of the money flowing into the Gaza Strip for Hamas (including funds from Arab and international agencies) to further military preparations at the expense of the civilian rebuilding of the Gaza Strip, which is proceeding slowly.

4. In addition, the remarks made by Khaled Mashaal directly contradict the “smile campaign” he is conducting for the West. He has repeatedly stressed Hamas’ adherence to its strategy of “resistance” as the main means of “liberating” all Palestinian lands, its total refusal to recognize Israel and its readiness to agree to a “temporary solution” in the form of a Palestinian state with the borders of 1967 as a political maneuver to ease Hamas’ political isolation.

5. Khaled Mashaal’s remarks refute one of the main conclusions of the Goldstone Report: The Report accused Israel of responsibility for the distress of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, while it completely ignored the responsibility borne by Hamas. His remarks show that relieving the Gazans’ distress  is not one of Hamas’ main priorities, but rather it invests most of its efforts and resources in military preparations for the next round of anti-Israeli terrorism.

Source: Intelligence Terrorism and Information Center, november 19 2009

________

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Hamas Promises to Continue Terrorism until Israel Is Destroyed
2. Hamas Calls for the Destruction and Delegitimization of the State of Israel
3. The AKP’s Hamas Policy: “Us vs. Them”

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Who was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeiny and why is it important to make an analysis of his views and writings about Islam?

There’re several reasons for us to do this.

The contemporary influence of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s ideas and writings on Global Islam and Iran’s foreign policy is widely underestimated by western governments, politicians, NGO’s, media and moderate Muslims. What we are going to show you are the basics and thoughts of a man who not only played a significant role in the overthrowing of the Shah regime of Iran in 1979, but also had his influence on suicide bombing and global jihad against Israel and the West as we know it today. And in saying this, we cannot avoid the subject that the Islam is the only reason for Muslims to participate in global jihad, hatred against Israel and terrorism against unbelievers and the West.

We know that some may argue that these ideas and writings were of a man who lived in a state of middle age Islam, but as you will see that is not the case, although it’s sometimes hard to imagine that a civilized person could hold such idea’s. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeiny was an educated and intelligent man, who pursued his ideal for a world dominated by Islam. And world domination of Islam is not his idea, but the principle of the Quran as given by Muhammad, the Prophet.

So, was it that Ayatollah Khomeini twisted the basics of Islam (as layed out in the Quran and other writings) to favor his ideas and to fulfil his own desire for power? Or did the Islam influenced him so greatly by reading and studying the Quran (and other writings like the hadith), interpreting the verses literally and made him realize that for him to be a pure and good Muslim could mean no other than to radicalize in the most extreme way possible. He did not want to please himself, but to please Allah and create a theocracy, an Islamic God-ruled society.

To translate this to today: is it to blame solely on Ayatollah Khomeini that Iran’s Muhammad Ahmadinejad is seeking the destruction of Israel and pursuing Islamic World Domination or is it to blame on the Islam and the principles of Islam? The answer? Ayatollah Khomeini has undoubtedly had his influence as we going to see later on, but the main problem is the Islam itself, as layed out in the writings of the Quran and others.

Many will call us Islamophobic for saying this, but we only let Ayatollah Khomeini speak for himself and the Quran as well. These words are not ours, but from the Islam and from the followers of the Islam. Many will find this message disturbing, and moderate Muslims will disagree with us, saying that Islam is a religion of peace. But, the thing is, everyday we see this ‘religion of peace’ in action by killing unbelievers for Allah. And all killings are done in the name of Allah, if it is a suicide bombing or a murder in the name of family honour. In fact, moderate Muslims themselves can only be moderate in the West and in Muslim countries who are moderate themselves (that is, not under Islamic Sharia law and influenced by democratic, modern movements within). Try to be a moderate Muslim (or a apostate for that matter) in Iran, Saoudi Arabia, Aghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and Gaza for example. A moderate Muslim is in the eyes of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Quran not a Muslim at all. If you don’t take the Quran literally and live like a good Muslim according all rules of Quran, Hadith, Sharia, you are doomed just like unbelievers are in the eyes of the radical Islamist.

Shia female militia

It’s for you to understand that the problems we face today with Islam is not about land or Muslim rights or modern society. The problems we face today are about ideology. The Islamization of our world, the destruction of Israel, the global Jihad, the hatred against all unbelievers are all serving the same goal: The Islam is seeking World Domination.

Who was Ayatollah Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini?

Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini was born on 24 september 1902 in the small town of Khomein, located near the city of Qom. His ancestors were descendants of the Imam Mousa al-Kazim, 7th Imam of the Ahl al-Bayt, and migrated to the Lucknow region of Northern India at the end of the eighteenth century. Ayatollah’s Khomeini’s grandfather Seyet Ahmad, settled in Khomein sometime in the middle of the nineteenth century. He was the child of a family with a long tradition of Islamic Scholarship.

The father of Ruhollah Khomeini, Seyed Moustafa, had his religious education in Esfahan, Samarra and Najaf. In march 1903, Ruhollah’s father was murdered by friends of a man who was sentenced to death by Seyed Moustafa, when Ruhollah was just 5 months old. He was raised by his mother and aunt until they both died in 1918. Ruhollah started to study the Quran at the age of 6. In 1920 he went to Arak and commenced his study under the leadership of Ayatollah Abdul Karim Haeri-Yazdi. In 1921 he followed the Ayatollah to the city of Qom and studied Islamic law (sharia), Jurisprudence (figh), poetry and philosophy (irfan). He became close friends with the son of Ayatollah Abdul Karim Haeri-Yazdi, Dr. Mehdi Haeri-Yazdi, who was the first Iranian Embassador (although just briefly) to the United States after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Because of his interest in philosophy and mysticism, Khomeiny sought guidance of Mirza Ali Akbar Yazdi, a scholar of philosophy and mysticism. After his dead in 1924, Khomeiny went on to study philosophy and mysticism with the help of other teachers and sufi mystics.

a young Ruhollah

Ruhollah Khomeiny became a lecturer at Najaf and Qom seminaries in political philosophy, Islamic history and ethics. He produced numerous writings on Islamic philosophy, law and ethics. By that time he was a leading scholar in Shia Islam. Although he was not known in the political scene at that moment, he was focusing on the importance of Islam on the practical social and political issues of society. In that time, 1942, he wrote the Kashf al-Asrar (Uncovering of Secrets). This book would play a major role in the coming Islamization of Iran and the Iranian revolution, because of it’s detailed interpretation of the Quran concerning practical and social issues of a Muslim society. In 1945, Khomeini became the title of Hojjat al-Islam, the highest in rank of Shia cleric in Iran under the Ayatollahs.

Ruhollah khomeini 1950's

In 1963 Khomeini became a Marja (Grand Ayatollah), which means that he was the highest authority of Islamic law after the Quran, Prophets and Imams. (He would eventually reach the status of Imam in Iran). From that time on he would oppose the Shah of Persia, because of his westernization of Iran (the White Revolution), which Khomeini considered as a betrayal to Islam. He was arrested for a speech he held in Feyziyeh madrasah, june 1963, opposing the Shah and followed by three days of riots. In August he was released and in november 1964 arrested again for his opposing of the Shah’s ’status-0ff-forces agreement’ with the United States. He was held 6 months in captive and the Shah finally sent him into exile to Turkey, and eventually he went to Iraq and France.

In 1970 Khomeini gave a series of lectures in Najaf about Islamic government. This was published as Hokumat-e Islami: Velayat-e faqih (Islamic government: Authority of the Jurist), his most famous book. This book would lay the basics for the establishing of the Iranian Islamic republic in 1979.

The Shah lost his momentum of power during the seventies as several secular (democratic and left-wing) and Islamic groups revolted together against his regime. Army units started to deflect to the opposition and the remaining army would declare itself eventually neutral. Khomeini returned to Iran on 1 february 1979, the Shah had left the country two weeks earlier, and in March a referendum was held to which the people of Iran could choose between the establishing of a secular republic or an Islamic republic. Unaware of Khomeini’s plan for an Islamic Government by Wilayat al-faqih, rule by a Marja Islamic cleric, the people choose for an Islamic Republic. The people of Iran didn’t want an Islamic constitution, they just wanted to end the regime of the Shah. But Khomeini had other plans for Iran.

anti-shah revolution turned to Islamic revolution

It’s no surprise that, what can be seen now as the total Islamization of Iran, all social and political issues came into submission to Islamic law. And in this enviroment the Iran Hostage Crisis took place as well as the highly praised Islamic Martyrdom, devoutedly carried out by the Basiji during the Iran-Iraq war. Khomeiny is also known for his fatwa (1989) against author Salman Rushdie ordering his assassination and the killing and suppression of opposition In Iran. In 1988 he issued a fatwa to kill every Iranian political prisoner who would not repent and show to be a real Muslim, which would led to the execution of many of them (numbers vary from 1400 to 30.000 murdered).

Since the Iranian Revolution, minorities like jews, christians and others have had a hard time in Iranian society, although Khomeiny issued a fatwa in 1979 that Jews should be treated well. He considered them to be the people of Moses, although he also rejected Zionism. In reality, jews and christians are seen in Iranian society as second-rang citizens and have less rights under Islamic law.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Mousavi Khomieni died 3 june 1989 after eleven days in hospital of a heart attack at the age of 86.

The influence of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as a Shiite religious leader and his writings can be seen today in Islamic terror organizations like Hezbollah (Lebanon), al-Qaida, Hamas (Gaza) and the Taliban (Afghanistan). Ayatollah Khomeini favors Islamic Martyrdom, even suicide bombing, and global Jihad against all unbelievers. His teachings around the coming of the twelfth Imam Mahdi evolves around the coming World Domination of Islam.

jews = zionism

If we compare this with contemporary Iran, we see that Muhammad Ahmadinejad is highly influenced by the teachings of this Shiite Religious leader and the Iranian Revolution. He is a devote follower of Shia Islam and a jihadist. So do you still wonder why Ahmadinejad is denying the Holocaust? He is not a madman, he is an intellectual, just like Khomeini. They share the same principles based on the same religion, the Islam and seek the destruction of Israel. Although they cleverly substituted the word jew for zionist. Ahmadinejad, just like Khomeini favors the Islamic global jihad and plays a major role in funding several terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. Can you imagine what this man would do if he had nuclear capability? You have seen what freedom means in Iran. You have witnessed what the Basiji today do with opponents of the Islamic regime and demonstrators against Ahmadinejad (during the protests in june and july 2009).

Sayings and Excerpts from the writings of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is credited with dozens of books, tracts, letters and proclemations on his name. What we show here are only excerpts and by far not his complete legacy. I will not comment on each and every quote or excerpt, because they speak for themselves. It’s not hard to conclude that these writings and sayings from Khomeini and others, are clear about the way Muslim clerics, Muslim men and Muslim society should (according to Islamic law) treat women, children, jews, christians, unbelievers, homosexuals, moderate modernized Muslims etcetera. It’s clear what goes around in the mind of the suicide bomber, the jihadist, the Muslim terrorist, the antisemite, and in the mind of Muhammad Ahmadinejad (Iran), Hassan Nasrallah (Hezbollah), Bin Laden (al-Qaida), Nidal Hasan (ft. Hood) and so many others.

khomeini the imam

Kashf al-Asrar (‘Uncovering of secrets’, Khomeini’s first book, published in 1942)

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

“But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world … Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.”

“Islam says: kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]?”

“Islam say: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?”

“Islam says: kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy?”

“Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors!”

“There are hundreds of other ayat [Qur'anic verses] and ahadith urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

About the government of the Shah’s father, Reza Shah — “idiotic and treacherous … poisonous … heinous… a gang to plunder the country,” which allowed “women’s going naked in the streets” (a reference to the Shah’s father’s banning of the traditional hijab covering of women’s faces, not actual nudity) and the practice of “lechery, treachery, music, dancing, and a thousand other varieties of corruption.”

Resaleh Towzih al-Masa’el (1961? Book about Religious Law; how to be a good Shia Muslim; almost all answers in this book are copies from earlier transcripts from other writers as Ayatollah Sayyid Hossein Borujerdi and Sayyid Kazem Yazdi)

“God, Exalted and Almighty, … sent laws that astound us with their magnitude. He instituted laws and practices for all human affairs … There is not a single topic in human life for which Islam has not provided instruction and established a norm.”

“If a person crushes a mosquito on his skin and cannot determine whether the blood there from is the insect’s or his own, this blood is pure; but if the time between the bite and the death of the mosquito is so short that no such distinction can be made, the blood is impure.”

“Urinating and defecating are forbidden in four places: blind alleys, except with the permission of those living along them; the property of a person who has not given permission to do so; places of worship, such as certain madrasas; graves of believers, unless one does so as an insult to them.”

“There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Moslem men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel.”

“Every part of the body of a non-Muslim individual is impure, even the hair on his hand and his body hair, his nails, and all the secretions of his body.”

“One must avoid giving the Koran to an infidel; it is even recommended that it be forcibly taken away from him if he already has it in his hands.”

“A Muslim will inherit from an infidel but an infidel will not inherit from a Moslem even though he is the deceased’s father or son.”

“A woman who has been contracted permanently must not leave the house without the husband’s permission and must surrender herself for any pleasure that he wants and must not prevent him from having intercourse with her without a religious excuse. And if she obeys the husband in these the provision of her food and clothing and dwelling and other appliances mentioned in books is obligatory for the husband and if he does not provide them he is indebted to the woman, whether or not he can afford them.”

“It is recommended that one hurries [sic] in giving husband to a daughter who has attained puberty, meaning that she is of the age of religious accountability. His Holiness, Sadegh [the 6th Imam] salutations to him, bade that it is one of a man’s good fortunes that his daughter does not see menses in his own house. A girl who does not know whether or not she has finished nine years of age, when seeing blood which does not have the sign of menses, is not menstruating. And if [the blood] has the signs of menses and she is certain of its menstrual nature she is menstruating and it becomes evident that she has finished the age of nine.”

Traditionally Muslims are commanded not just to preach to others, but to command them to do what is good and not do what is evil – evil being both acts universally agreed to be crimes (larceny, rape, murder, etc), and religious sins (eating pork, drinking wine, ignoring fast during the holy months of Ramadan, etc.). Khomeini’s guidelines on how to deal with sinners start with giving them a warning, then “refraining from conversing” with them, then “breaking all relations with the sinner”, and work their way up to “beating the sinner”, and finally “wounding and slaying” them. Bodily harm is only “acceptable” if “permitted by a fully qualified Expert,” an expert meaning an expert in Islamic law such as the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Tahrir al-Vasileh (Book on Religious Law, written in Arabic to pass Iranian censorship, when he was in exile, Bursa in Turkey)

1) Apostasy is leaving Islam and accepting infidelity. One who turns from Islam to infidelity is called an apostate and that is of two kinds:
a) innate-apostate, and that is a person that one of his father or mother was Moslem when his seed was being jelled, and who embraced Islam following puberty and then left Islam.
b) National apostate, and that is a person whose father and mother were infidels when his seed was being jelled and he has expressed infidelity after puberty, and became an original infidel (kafar i aslee), then he embraced Islam and later has returned to infidelity; such as a person who originally was a Christian and became a Moslem and then returned to Christianity.

2) Innate-apostate’s [embracing of] Islam is apparently unacceptable and, if a man, his ruling is execution and, if a woman, she is condemned to prison for life and [with] beating when praying and straitening of livelihood, but her repenting is acceptable and she will freed if she repents.

3) A national apostate will be caused to repent and in case of refusing to repent will be executed. And it is preferable to give a 3 day reprieve and to execute him on the fourth day if he refused.

4) Puberty, knowledge, volition and intention are credible in ruling on apostasy.

5) The child of a Moslem or that of an apostate, whether national or innate, is considered Moslem before the father’s apostasy, and therefore, if the child reached puberty and chose infidelity he will be asked to repent (and to return to Islam), else he will be executed.

6) Apostasy is proven by the witnessing of two just men and by confession.

“… no equality in religion, therefore Moslem will not be retaliated for [killing an] infidel, unless a Moslem has a habit of killing infidels.”

“…the followers of the tri-religions (Jewish, Christianity and Zoroastrian) … undertake and guarantee the conditions of tribute, to be mentioned later, their religions will be recognized and an amount of poll tax (Jizyah) will be accepted from them.”

“A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.” From Khomeini’s book, Tahrirolvasyleh, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Qom, Iran, 1990 (note: this is a disputed excerpt by followers of Khomeini).

“A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.” The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in “Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh,” Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom (note: this is a disputed excerpt by followers of Khomeini).

Speech in Qom, 3 april  1963 (a speech given by Khomeini adressing the Shah’s legislation proposal in 1962 to allow non-Muslims (e.g. jews, christians, muslim minorities) and women to serve on local governments.

“I have repeatedly pointed out that the [shah] government has evil intentions and is opposed to the ordinances of Islam. …The Ministry of Justice has made clear its opposition to the ordinances of Islam by various measures like the abolition of the requirement that judges be Muslim and male; henceforth, jews, Vhristians, and the enemies of Islam and the Muslims are to decide on affairs concerning the honor and person of the Muslims.”

“…our aim which is none other than the great aim of Islam — to prevent oppression, arbitrary rule, and the violation of the law; to preserve the rights of Islam and the nation; and to establish social justice.”

Hokumat-e Islami: Velayat-e Faqih (Islamic Government: Authority of the Jurist) (Khomeini’s best known and most important book, derived from 17 lectures delivered in the main bazaar mosque of Najaf (Iraq) when in exile; it argued that government should be run in accordance with traditional Islamic Shari’ah law and a Faqih (i.e. ayatollah, Islamic cleric) must be in charge). “The Khomeinism Handbook” and bases for the Islamic Republic of Iran after the overtrow of the Shah regime in 1979.

“In order to assure the unity of the Islamic umma, in order to liberate the Islamic homeland from occupation and penetration by the imperialists and their puppet governments, it is imperative that we establish a government. … we must overthrow the oppressive governments installed by the imperialists and bring into existence an Islamic government of justice …”

“Islam proclaims monarchy and hereditary succession wrong and invalid. When Islam first appeared in Iran, the Byzantine Empire, Egypt, and the Yemen, the entire institution of monarchy was abolished.”

“In contrast … the body of Islamic laws that exist in the Qur’an and the Sunna has been accepted by the Muslims and recognized by them as worthy of obedience…”

“God, Exalted and Almighty, by means of the Most Noble Messenger (peace and blessing be upon him), sent laws that astound us with their magnitude. He instituted laws and practices for all human affairs . . . There is not a single topic in human life for which Islam has not provided instruction and established a norm. [But] in order to make the Muslims, especially the intellectuals and the younger generation, deviate from the path of Islam, foreign agents have constantly insinuated that Islam has nothing to offer, that Islam consists of a few ordinances concerning menstruation and parturition . . .”

“The agents of imperialism are busy in every corner of the Islamic world drawing our youth away from us with their evil propaganda.”

“Come to the aid of Islam; save Islam! They are destroying Islam! Invoking the laws of Islam and the name of the Most Noble Messenger (upon whom be peace and blessing), they are destroying Islam! Agents – both foreigners sent by the imperialists and natives employed by them – have spread out into every village and region of Iran and are leading out children and young people astray …”

“…centers of evil propaganda run by the churches, the Zionists, and the Baha’is in order to lead our people astray and make them abandon the ordinances and teaching of Islam. Do we not have a duty to destroy these centers that are damaging to Islam?”

“From the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam has had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present. Later they were joined by other groups, who were in certain respects more satanic then they. These new groups began their imperialist penetration of the Muslim countries about three hundred years ago, and they regarded it as necessary to work for the extirpation of Islam in order to attain their ultimate goals. … the imperialists … felt that the major obstacle in the path of their materialistic ambitions and the chief threat to their political power was nothing but Islam and its ordinances.”

“… is particularly important under the present circumstances, for the imperialists, the oppressive and treacherous rulers, the Jews, Christians, and materialists are all attempting to distort the truths of Islam and lead the Muslims astray. … We see today that the Jews (may God curse them) have meddled with the text of the Qur’an and have made certain changes in the Qur’ans they have had printed in the occupied territories. It is our duty to prevent this treacherous interference with the text of the Qur’an. We must protest and make the people aware that the Jews and their foreign backers are opposed to the very foundations of Islam and wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that – God forbid! – they may one day achieve their goal, and that the apathy shown by some of us may allow a Jew to rule over us one day.”

Jehad-e Akbar (Lectures on the supreme Jihad). (1972, Lectures given to students)

“Infallibility is borne by faith. If one has faith in God, and if one sees God with the eyes of his heart, like sun, it would be impossible for him to commit a sin.” (According to some scholars, what Khomeini wanted to make clear was that he reached the status of infallibility, thus his sayings and decisions should have to be seen as faultless)

“If you have any tie or link binding you to this world in love, try to sever it. This world, despite all its apparent splendor and charm, is too worthless to be loved … What do you possess in this world that makes you so attached to it?” (Considering Khomeini’s appeal for martyrdom by the Basiji during the Iran-Iraq war).

Statement of Khomeini, 28 september 1977 (Given to students)

“Islam and divine governments are not like that. These [governments] have commandments for everybody, everywhere, at any place, in any condition. If a person were to commit an immoral dirty deed right next to his house, Islamic governments have business with him.”

“…has rules for every person, even before birth, before his marriage, until his marriages, pregnancy, birth, until upbringing of the child, the education of the adult, until puberty, youth, until old age, until death, into the grave, and beyond the grave. [The Islamic rules] do not come to an end simply [because the person] is put into the grave … That is just the beginning.”

arrival from exile 1979

Speeches from after Khomeini came to power (in 1979, the Iranian Revolution came to its climax with the return of Khomeini to Iran, the Shah left Iran two weeks earlier, and to take power through intimidation and shrewd political maneuvering the democratic and leftist forces who had thought they controlled the revolution. The anti-Shah revolution became the Islamic revolution. Iran became an Islamic nation and Khomeini “the Supreme Leader”).

“Dying does not mean nothingness: it is life.”

“At times a calamity becomes a blessing … It is under pressure that the spirits soar to the higher world … If we Muslims … were like other nations, and had been running after wealth, status … or were running for bread and sex, many would have been disappointed. But the nation that goes to war for martyrdom … such a nation can hardly think of anything else. As for its economy, it does not matter. These matters are for those who are tied to economies.”

“What the nation wants is an Islamic republic: not just a republic, not a democratic republic, not a democratic Islamic republic. Do not use this term, ‘democratic’. That is the Western style.” [1979 March 1]

“Theocracy is something that God, the exalted … has ordained … Wake up, you gentlemen … because the deviationists are … trying to … smash our movement … [They] speak out [against] the concept of theocracy … I shall strike you in the mouth. Stop this talk … Enough is enough: what ought to be done must be done.”

“The aim of the prophets [is] to guide mankind toward knowledge of God. All other issues are subsidiary to it.”

“The aim of the prophets was not to bring about social justice . . . not for the sake of people . . . but for God.”

“You should make sure that these people [iranian opposition] who indulge in corruption . . . are crushed with full force. Such people, wherever they are should be sentence to death.”

“Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials. Islam, however, allows marksmanship, horseback riding and competition in [such sports].”

“Superpowers are stripping us naked … One of their big plans is to … replace [our brains] … with European ones: to … rob us of our intellectual independence. And I am confident that the Iranian people, particularly our youth, will keep alive in their hearts anger and hatred for the criminal Soviet Union and the warmongering United States. This must be until the banner of Islam flies over every house in the world.”

“If the great martyr … confined himself to praying … the great tragedy of Kabala would not have come about … Among the contemporary ulema, if the great Ayatollah … Shirazi … thought like these people, a war would not have taken place in Iraq … all those Muslims would not have been martyred.”

“The issue is another world. Martyrdom is meant for another world. This is a martyrdom sought by all of God’s saints and prophets … The people want this meaning.”

“We have often proclaimed this truth in our domestic and foreign policy, namely that we have set as our goal the world-wide spread of the influence of Islam and the suppression of the rule of the world conquerors … We wish to cause the corrupt roots of Zionism, capitalism and Communism to wither throughout the world. We wish, as does God almighty, to destroy the systems which are based on these three foundations, and to promote the Islamic order of the Prophet … in the world of arrogance.”

“We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry `There is no God but God` resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.”

“Establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong to the great goals of the revolution.”

“Islamic Revolution … is being exported … [so that] with the dispensations of the Supreme Lord, the banner of Islam is likely to be hoisted throughout the globe in the not-too-distant future.”

“…the foremost enemy of Islam [USA]… a terrorist state by nature that has set fire to everything everywhere and its ally, the international Zionism does not stop short of any crime to achieve its base and greedy desires, crimes that the tongue and pen are ashamed to utter or write…

Source: Many of Ayatollah’s sayings and writings are also bundled in The Little Green Book (following the example of Mao’s Little Red Book). This can be seen as a template for Shia Islam. You can also read here the quotations from the Quran about martyrdom, war and killing of all unbelievers.

You also may want to read some excellent articles written by Matthias Kuntzel: The Basiji: Ahmadinejads demons or Ahmadinejad’s world or From Khomeini to Ahmadinejad.

For more information about the Life of Khomeini, please visit Wikipedia and the Iran Chamber

Appendix

For more insight and background information about the ancestry of Ruhollah Khomeini, please read the following story about his elder brother, Ayatollah Morteza Pasandideh.
If you want to know more about the political scene around the Shah and Khomeini during their time period, than you’ll find the following articles very interesting to read: The first story is claiming that Khomeini supposedly was an agent for the US and UK government. The second story is about Khomeini and Rushdie and the British involvement.

These articles may be accurate or not, what matters most is (and that was the main purpose of our article) that the extremism and Jihad of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Shia Islam is a real threat to our free world. Personally, I believe that we would be surprised (and shocked) if we knew everything about the dirty games our governments are playing if it comes to oil and oil industry. The same goes for the treacherous and corrupt Arabic Islamic Kingdoms and totalitarian Governments in the Middle East.

Whether Khomeini really was half brit and half indian, I’m not sure. But in a way, does that really matter? Does it really matter that Ahmadinejad is from Jewish origin? What matters is that these zealous Shia Muslim men tried and are trying to seek the destruction of Israel and world domination for Islam. I think most people will agree on that.

Related posts:

1. Iran Hostage Crisis – Letter from Carter to Khomeini
2. Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi and Anti-Semitic Speeches
3. Fadlallah’s Legacy Sparks Debate Between Iran’s Reformists and Conservatives

Must watch video about how women are treated in contemporary Afghanistan.

It’s politically incorrect to blame the Islam for the way many Muslim men treat their women. It’s politically incorrect to expose the Islam as a violent, discriminating and abusive religion towards women and children. It’s politically incorrect to blame the Islamic law (sharia) for the execution of women for “crimes” the western societies would praise them for. It’s politically incorrect to expose the Islam as a backwarded religion who forces children into “marriage”. It’s politically incorrect to even think such things at all, but nevertheless these are facts within the Islam. Think about that, before you support your local mosque in your hometown or before you agree with claims made by Hamas or the Taliban or Hezbollah about “their so-called rights”. This is what awaits you when Islam and Sharia is at your doorstep. It’s time to wake up and decide what you’re going to do about that.

Link:

________

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. What if the Taliban Wins the War on Terror?
2. The World’s Double Standard against Israel
3. “Pakistan Knows Where Osama Bin Laden Is”

Israel Navy intercepted a massive arms shipment from Iran en route to the Hezbollah in Lebanon

__

From the IDF Spokesperson, 4 nov. 2009: You can read the original article here!

Roughly 500 tons of weapons, rockets, and missiles was uncovered aboard the cargo vessel “Francop” flying an Antiguan flag, which was intercepted and brought to the Ashdod port. The Israel Navy force which intercepted the ship included naval commandos, missile boats, intelligence and explosive experts.

36 shipping containers with 500 tons of weaponry were found on the ship disguised as civilian cargo, and hidden among hundreds of other containers onboard.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXDCDPPeN_Q

You can also watch this video fullscreen, click here!

Israel Naval and Engineering Corps forces are currently unloading the containers and are sorting through the various types of weaponry found aboard.

The naval commando force boarded the vessel and conducted an initial search. The search was conducted in accordance with the usual search protocols as dictated by International Law.

Following the initial search and after it became clear that the vessel was carrying weapons, the vessel was directed by the Israel Navy to dock at the Israeli Ashdod Naval base for additional searches and a detailed inspection of the hull’s cargo. It should be emphasized that the captain of the ship agreed to the search. The Israel Navy conducted all activity without any force.

The weapons found onboard the ship originate from Iran, and were intended for the Hezbollah terror organization, for use against the State of Israel and its citizens. The weapons uncovered at sea last night constitute a harsh violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1747 and 1701 that strictly forbid Iran from exporting or trading any form of weapons.

This is a well-known Iranian technique, taking advantage of cargo ships flying different flags in order to smuggle containers loaded with large amounts of highly volatile weaponry to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.

Following the necessary inspections of the boat, it is expected to be released.

The overnight operation was authorized by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense of the State of Israel. Commander of the Israel Navy, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, commanded the operation from a forward command cell. The IDF Chief of the General Staff authorized the operation, after the confirmation of intelligence information gathered by the IDF.

1. List of past Iranian attempts to smuggle weapons to terrorist groups

__

From the IDF Spokesperson, 4 nov 2009:  You can read the original article here!

Weapons from the Karin a

December 2001 – The Karin A ship, loaded with weapons in Iran, bound for the Gaza Strip, was sailing towards Egypt with the intention of unloading its cargo there.  Small fishing boats were meant to pick up the cargo and deliver it to the Gaza Strip. The ship, loaded with rockets, anti-tank rockets, and light arms, was seized on January 3^rd, 2002 by Israeli Naval Commandos.

December 2003 – January 2004 - The Iranian Revolutionary Guard directed an aerial convoy to transfer weapons and supplies to Hezbollah via Syria. The aerial convoys were disguised as humanitarian aid intended for casualties of an earthquake in Bam, a city in southern Iran. The Iranians took advantage of the open airspace by trying to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah while humanitarian aid flights were landing in Iran from all over the world.

May 2007 – An Iranian train carrying arms (mortar shells, light arms, rocket launchers and ammunition) was uncovered in Turkey. The arms were intended for Hezbollah. The Iranians attempted to conceal and disguise the arms in order to avoid suspicion by the Turkish authorities.

January 2009 – An arms shipment sent by Iran was intercepted and seized in Cyprus after it was found on the Cypriot vessel Monchegorsk which had been leased by the Iranian Irisl shipping company. The Cargo was found to include tank, artillery and mortar shells as well as materials to be used for producing rockets.

October 2009 - The Hansa India, which sailed from Iran flying a German flag was due to unload a cargo of eight containers in Egypt. Following warnings from the German authorities the vessel was not unloaded and continued to Malta where it was seized and found to be carrying bullets and industrial material intended for the production of weapons, seemingly bound for Syria.

2. UN Resolutions limiting Iranian export and arms trade

__

UN Security Council Resolution 1747 (March 24, 2007):
“Decides that Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related material, and that all States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran.”

UN Security Council Resolution 1803 (March 24, 2008)
“Calls upon all States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, to inspect the cargoes to and from Iran of aircraft and vessels, at their airports and seaports, owned or operated by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, provided there are reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft or vessel is transporting goods prohibited under this resolution or resolution 1737 (2006) or resolutions 1747 (2007);”

UN Security Council Resolution 1835 (September 27, 2008)
“Reaffirms the statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March, and its resolution 1696 (2006) of 31 July 2006, its resolution 1737 (2006) of 23 December 2006, its resolution 1747 (2007) of 24 March 2007, and its resolution 1803 (2008) of 3 March 2008…”

________

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. IDF Navy Forces Boarded and Took Control of MV “Rachel Corrie”
2. Israeli Navy Soldiers Board Seventh Flotilla Ship
3. Overview of The Pre-Planned Violence During Israel Navy Interception of Mavi Marmara

Het volgende artikel is geschreven door Enid Kooi. Bron: Israel Nieuwsbrief (uitgave oktober 2009/nr. 9/jaargang 24; CIDI)

De Iraanse president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sprak op 24 september 2009 tijdens de Algemene Vergadering van de VN. De verwachte Holocaust ontkenning bleef uit, maar zonder het woord ‘jood’ te noemen schetste hij een volledig door antisemitische stereotypen gekleurd wereldbeeld waarin Joden de vijand zijn die de wereld in hun greep houden om moslims kwaad te doen.

Ahmadinejads speech was volgens commentatoren meer gericht op de Arabische straat dan op Iran, om nog maar te zwijgen van de VN. Al in de aanhef zette hij de toon, niet alleen door zijn beroep op Allah, maar vooral door de goed Sjiitische hoop uit te spreken dat imam Al-Mahdi spoedig zal wederkomen en zal overwinnen. Ahmadinejad wierp zich in New York opnieuw op als de grote verdediger van de Islamitische wereld, die hij in nauwelijks bedekte termen afschilderde als slachtoffer van een door Joden gemanipuleerde westen.

In de speech van Ahmadinejad geven de steekwoorden “de wereld overheersen”, “bezetting” en “alle vormen van discriminatie” (denk aan Durban met zijn leus ‘Zionisme is Racisme’) en “broederschap” al aan waar dit heen gaat. Dit alles werkt hij uit met een aanval op het kapitalisme van “zekere machten”, waar tegenover hij “het ontwaken van volken” stelt en de “verspreiding van de vrijheid”.

Over die “zekere machten” zei de Iraanse president ook: “Wij kunnen niet langer accepteren dat een kleine minderheid de politiek, de economie en de cultuur van belangrijke delen van de wereld overheerst via wijd vertakte netwerken, een nieuwe vorm van slavernij instelt, en de reputatie van andere landen, zelfs van Europese landen en de VS, schade berokkent om haar racistische doelen te bereiken.”

Ahmadinejad had het woord ‘Jood’ niet genoemd, maar deze oude antisemitische fantasie over “een kleine groep” die de wereld overheerst volgde naadloos op zijn tirade over (het ook niet bij name genoemde) Israel. De antisemitische sneer ging vertegenwoordigers van veel EU-landen te ver. De meeste, Nederland, voorop, verlieten hierop de zaal. Tevoren al was op voorstel van minister Verhagen afgesproken dat de EU-landen dit zouden doen als Ahmadinejad opnieuw de Holocaust zou ontkennen. Naast Nederland vertrokken ook Zweden, Frankrijk, Engeland, Italië, Duitsland, Australië en Nieuw Zeeland; de VS, Israël en Canada stonden al buiten, omdat zij de speech boycotten. Opmerkelijk was, volgens een bericht in de Jerusalem Post, dat de afgevaardigden van de EU-landen Spanje en Bulgarije bleven zitten.

Wat Israel betreft contrasteerde Ahmadinejad onder meer de termen ‘genocide’, ‘onmenselijk’ en ‘verboden wapens’ met de ‘thuisland’ en ‘legitiem recht op zelfverdediging’ (van de Palestijnen). De tirade tegen de VS toonde wat de Iraanse president vindt van Obama’s ‘uitgestoken hand’, maar tegen die tijd was de zaal al grotendeels leeg. Ook Ahmadinejads oplossing (de heilige Koran) en zijn mooie woorden over de heilzame veranderingen die deze over de wereld zal brengen, inclusief een einde aan nucleaire proliferatie, ontgingen zo de meeste afgevaardigden.

De speech van Ahmadinejad toonde opnieuw dat hij zich weinig gelegen laat liggen aan de Westerse wereld. Ahmadinejad is niet van plan te stoppen met het door het Internationale Atoomenergieagentschap als illegaal getypeerde Iraanse nucleaire programma. Hij stelt dat zijn land net als andere landen een vreedzaam programma mag hebben. Steeds minder mensen geloven echter dat het programma werkelijk vreedzaam is.

Na de VN vergadering bleek dat Teheran een tweede nucleaire fabriek bouwt. Daarbij heeft het land meerdere malen testen uitgevoerd met ballistische raketten die Israel en delen van Europa kunnen bereiken. De leden van de VN Veiligheidsraad hebben tijdens de zitting van de Algemene Vergadering ingestemd met een resolutie tegen de verspreiding van nucleaire wapens. Ook wordt al enige tijd overwogen het sanctieregime tegen Iran te verzwaren. Inmiddels heeft Rusland aangegeven daar niet meer afwijzend tegenover te staan. Na het bekend worden van het bestaan van een tweede fabriek en na de raket oefeningen bestaat de kans dat ook andere landen hiermee in zullen stemmen.

Op 1 oktober spraken de vijf permanente leden van de VN-raad plus Duitsland met Iran over zijn nucleaire ambities. Tijdens deze gesprekken beloofde Iran dat het Internationale Atoomagentschap volledig toegang krijgt tot de nieuwe verrijkingsfabriek en dat Teheran alle medewerking zal verschaffen. Het westen bereidt echter nieuwe gesprekken voor en is van plan om nieuwe sancties tegen het Moellah regime te ontwerpen. Of deze sancties ook zwaarder zullen zijn, zal dan blijken.

basiji militie

Ahmadinejads Basiji achtergrond en de komst van imam Al-Mahdi

In de aanhef van zijn speech voor de Algemene Vergadering van de VN sprak Ahmadinejad de hoop uit dat de komst van Imam al-Mahdi bespoedigd zou worden en dat hij zal overwinnen. Wat er moet gebeuren om die komst te bespoedigen zei hij er niet bij, maar in het licht van Ahmadinejads militante Basiji achtergrond versterkt dit de twijfels over de vreedzame bedoelingen van Iran’s nucleaire programma.

De twaalfde imam, al-Mahdi, wordt door Sjiieten gezien als een messias van de Islam. Deze imam viel als klein jongetje in de negende eeuw in het Iraanse stadje Jamkaran in een waterput, maar volgens de overlevering zal hij als een volwassen man samen met Jezus terugkeren om de wereldorde te herstellen en te zorgen voor goedheid en verbetering. Ahmadinejad gelooft dat de imam pas terug komt als de weg is vrijgemaakt van vijanden en hij is er van overtuigd dat hij hiervoor moet zorgen. Zo zei hij in een speech op een theologische conferentie in 2005: “De belangrijkste taak van onze revolutie is om de weg te bereiden voor de terugkeer van de Twaalfde Imam.”

De gedachte dat de weg vrijgemaakt moet worden van vijanden, is in de wereld geholpen door de Ayatollah Khomeini. Deze geestelijke heeft het oorspronkelijke messiasverhaal uitgebreid met de bewering dat Moslims hun wapens op moeten pakken om de komst van de Mahdi te bespoedigen. Oorspronkelijk was het doel van deze toevoeging op het imamverhaal de jonge Basiji’s te motiveren.

De Basiji-e Mostazafan (‘de mobilisering van de onderdrukte’), is een paramilitaire organisatie die het martelaarschap als het hoogste goed ziet en die met name veel kinderen indoctrineerde met het verlangen om te sterven voor Allah. Deze organisatie is in het leven geroepen door Khomeiny in 1979. Tijdens de Iran-Irakoorlog stuurde hij tienduizenden jonge Basiji’s slecht bewapend als martelaren naar de frontlinie van het slagveld of een mijnenveld in. Het was hun plicht om door te blijven lopen ook al werd er op hun geschoten of liepen ze door het mijnenveld. Op deze manier vormden zij een schild voor de ervaren militairen.

Om deze kinderen aan te moedigen om op deze manier de dood in te lopen, zette het regime een show op. Er verscheen meerdere malen plotseling een mysterieuze man aan de frontlinie. Deze man, die de twaalfde imam moest voorstellen, reed op een paard en droeg een middeleeuws kostuum. Zijn gezicht was niet zichtbaar. Wanneer de kinderen de schijnbare imam zagen, reageerden zij in eerste instantie emotioneel. Ze renden naar de imam toe en begonnen te bidden of te huilen. Na deze emoties veranderde hun angst en vermoeidheid in motivatie om verder te lopen. Tijdens het lopen zongen de kinderen ook liederen over de Slag van Karbala, waarin imam Hoessein, kleinzoon van de profeet Mohammed, werd gemarteld en gedood.

Hoessein wordt geëerd als een martelaar die een opstand tegen de ‘tirannie’ van Khalief Yazid leidde. Nadat deze opstand was verraden, werd Hoessein vermoord met 33 lanssteken en 34 zwaardsneden, waarna hij werd onthoofd en zijn lichaam vertrapt door paarden. Hij is het grote voorbeeld van de jonge Basiji’s. Zij droegen tijdens hun tochten plastic sleutels (‘made in taiwan’) om de nek, die de toegangspoorten van het paradijs moesten openen.

Ahmadinejad was destijds een van de Basiji-instructeurs die de kinderen klaarstoomde voor hun martelaarsdood. Dit verklaart de Duitse schrijver en politiek wetenschapper Matthias Kuntzel in zijn essay ‘Ahmidinejads wereld’. De verkiezingszege uit 2005 heeft de president te danken aan de Basiji en hij laat zich nog vaak zien in Basiji-uniform tijdens publieke aangelegenheden. De organisatie zelf dient tegenwoordig als beschermer van het Moellah-regime. Na de laatste verkiezingen werden de Basiji’s bijvoorbeeld ingezet om de “orde te handhaven” tijdens de recente protesten.

Mullah and the basiji

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. President Ahmadinejad speech to the UN General Assembly sept 2009
2. Who will stop Iran’s Ahmadinejad?
3. The Basiji: Ahmadinejad’s demons

How it all began…

poster 1918

In 1918, the last year of the first World War, more than 1500 jewish men and women in Palestine (the country’s jewish population was then about 60.000) enlisted in an all-jewish volunteer fighting unit, the jewish legion. Five hundred of the volunteers were young women who enrolled in an auxiliary service of the legion to provide medical care for the wounded soldiers. Modelled on the Red Cross, the service was given the name Magen David Adom (which means “Red Shield of David”, but also known as the Red Star of David). A selected number of its members served in military hospitals, and their emblem, the Red Shield of David, was recognized by the British Military Government. Shortly after the end of the War, the service was disbanded.

first ambulance 1931

It is in 1930, as a result of Arab revolts in 1929, that Magen David’s Adom continuous history commences, when volunteers like Karen Tenenbaum gave life to the new organization. The country, by then under British Mandate, had no First Aid services and no ambulance services. To fill the urgent need, seven public-spirited men established a First Aid Society bearing the name Magen David Adom. The ‘headquarters building’ was a small store in the center of Tel Aviv and MDA’s one and only ambulance answered all calls around Tel Aviv. Only seven years later the MDA served the whole country with 600 ambulances. Not only serving the jews, but Christians, Arabs and Muslims as well.  During the second World War, two MDA services were recognized by the British Authorities. From the thirties till 1948 the MDA also served as the medical services for the Haganah.

armoured ambulance

In 1949, the international organization of Red Cross departments, rejected the full membership of the Magen David Adom by 1 vote only. The Knesset made on 12 july 1950 the MDA officialy Israel’s national emergency service (the MDA-law). Until today it serves as Israels emergency, medical, disaster, ambulance and blood bank service. During times of war, the MDA can serve as an auxiliary arm of the Israeli Defense Forces for the IDF troops.

magen david adom

Since 2006, the MDA has been officially recognized by the international committee of the Red Cross as the national aid society of Israel under the Geneva Conventions and as a member of the international federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

emblem for use outside israel

The Magen David Adom emblem is not officially recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross for use outside of Israel. That is why Israel uses the above emblem outside Israel depending on the political situation in the host country. Otherwise they use the official neutral emblem below.

red crystal

Israel continues the effort in getting their Magen David Adom emblem officially recognized by the Red Cross Committee. It’s is obvious that using the Red Cross or the Red Crescent as the official emblem is out of the question on historical grounds. For the jews a cross and crescent means centuries of persecution. It therefore is essential that Israel is allowed to use it’s Magen David Adom emblem also outside of Israel. Despite the support of various national Red Cross organizations, it’s not likely that the Magen David Adom will be recognized in the near future by the Red Cross Committee, because of the dominating muslim countries (in numbers) in this committee, which makes the difference when it comes to voting.

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Terrorism and Israeli-Palestinian conflict
2. President Ahmadinejad speech to the UN General Assembly sept 2009
3. Prime Minister Netanyahu speech to the UN General Assembly sept 2009

News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

(October 6-12, 2009)

Gaza Strip

This past week, despite the events on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, there was a decrease in the amount of rocket and mortar shell fire. One mortar shell hit was identified in an open field near the southern Israeli city of Sderot (October 7, 2009). There were no casualties and no damage was done. Elements within the Army of the Nation (a network affiliated with the global jihad) claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it retaliation for the events at Al-Aqsa mosque (Ma’an News Agency, October 8, 2009).

On October 6 civilians working near the Karni crossing were attacked with light arms fire. An IDF force responded with mortar shells. The military-terrorist wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack. According to reports in the Palestinian media, the Israeli fire wounded a number of Palestinian civilians (Qudsnews and Safa News Agency, October 6, 2009).

The crossings between Israel and the Gaza Strip were open all week and 642 trucks entered with food and supplies.

The statistics do not include the mortar shells fired at IDF soldiers patrolling the border fence which fell inside the Gaza Strip.

Hamas continues its policy of restraint

According to an article in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, as the events at the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem caused tension, the de-facto Hamas administration tightened its control of the Gaza Strip and prevented rockets from being fired into Israeli territory. The paper also reported that on two separate occasions Hamas’ security forces detained operatives of new networks who were planning to fire rockets. The operatives were interrogated and released after their rockets had been confiscated and they had been warned not to fire again. According to the article, Hamas security forces take the same measures against operatives from larger organizations such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, October 6, 2009).

Another source reported that Hamas’ attempt to detain a Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative led to exchanges of fire between PIJ and Hamas operatives in the Shati refugee camp (PalPress website, October 9, 2009). A senior PIJ figure claimed that on at least three instances during the past month Hamas security forces prevented the PIJ from firing rockets into Israel in retaliation for killing two of its operatives and for the events on the Temple Mount. He added that Hamas has detained two other PIJ operatives over struggles for control of a mosque in the northern Gaza Strip. Ihab al-Ghussin, spokesman for the ministry of the interior of the Hamas de-facto administration, said in response that “Hamas does not restrict the resistance’s activity” (Al-Ayyam, October 11, 2009).

Judea and Samaria

The Israeli security forces continued their counterterrorism activities this past week, detaining Palestinians suspected of terrorist activities. There were many attacks this week, among them the following:

October 12: Stones were thrown at an Israeli vehicle southeast of Hebron. There were no casualties but the vehicle was damaged (IDF Spokesman, October 12, 2009).

October 11: Stones were thrown at an Israeli vehicle southwest of Bethlehem. There were no casualties but the vehicle was damaged. Stones were also thrown at an Israel vehicle southeast of Qalqilya and north of Ramallah. There were no casualties but the vehicle was damaged (IDF Spokesman, October 11, 2009).

October 11: A knife and improvised IED were found in the possession of two Palestinian youths at the Hawara checkpoint south of Nablus (IDF Spokesman, October 11, 2009).

October 11: A fake IED was thrown at an IDF force at the Hawara checkpoint. There were no casualties and no damage was done. The IED was detonated in a controlled explosion by the IDF force (IDF Spokesman, October 11, 2009).

October 10: An Israeli woman civilian was injured when stones were thrown at her car south of Nablus. Stones were also thrown at an Israel vehicle southeast of Bethlehem. There were no casualties(Ynet, October 10, 2009).

October 10: An IDF force uncovered a stockpile of Molotov cocktails ready for throwing in a village north of Nablus (Ynet, October 10, 2009).

October 9: Stones were thrown at an Israeli vehicle northeast of Ramallah. A female Israeli passenger sustained a head injury (Ynet, October 10, 2009).

October 8: Stones were thrown at an Israeli bus near Bethlehem. There were no casualties but the bus was damaged (IDF Spokesman, October 8, 2009).

Hamas prepares to respond to the Goldstone Report

On October 8 Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip was preparing legal responses to the accusations made against it by the Goldstone Report. A committee had been appointed to repudiate the accusations, especially those concerning its use of civilians as human shields during Operation Cast Lead. According to Mahmoud al-Zahar, the committee would submit evidence based on events on the ground and on reports by international organizations such as Human Rights Watch (Al-Quds Al-Arabi, October 8, 2009).

Internal power struggles in the Dughmush clan

On the afternoon of October 10 there was a confrontation in the Sabra network in the southern part of Gaza City between terrorist operatives of the so-called Popular Resistance, members of Zakaria Dughmush’s family and members of Mumtaz Dughmush’s family belonging to the Army of Islam. The confrontation lasted for two hours. The house of the organization’s secretary general, Zakaria Dughmush, was attacked with machine guns and RPGs and Rashid Dughmush was killed (PalToday website, October 10, 2009). Elements within the so-called Popular Resistance asked the Hamas de-facto administration to investigate the affair and find the guilty parties. They said it was a question of an internal clan conflict (Muqawamah website, October 10, 2009). This is not the first time the influential Dughmush clan has been involved in internal power struggles linked to the terrorist organizations.

The peace process

Following American envoy George Mitchell’s meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Palestinian Authority said in a statement that Mitchell’s visit had not lead to “genuine progress in relaunching the peace process and ensuring its success because of the position of the Israeli government” (Wafa News Agency, October 12, 2009).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opened the winter session of the Knesset [Israeli Parliament] with a speech relating, among other things, to the principles of Israel-Palestinian peace. He said those principles were Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, a solution to the refugee problem beyond the borders of the State of Israel, an effective and recognized demilitarization of the Palestinian state and to put an end to Palestinian demands on Israel [as part of any agreement reached]. He also reviewed the steps taken by Israel to improve Palestinian welfare, which included the dismantling of roadblocks and checkpoints, removing the earthworks blocking roads, improving freedom of movement, encouraging commerce and leaving the Allenby Bridge open for longer hours.

Following internal pressure caused by Hamas’ vicious propaganda campaign, the Palestinian Authority is bringing the Goldstone Report before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and the General Assembly in New York. In addition, on October 11 the PLO’s Executive committee again adopted the report. Palestinian media reported that Mahmoud Abbas had received a phone call from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Ban reportedly expressed support for Mahmoud Abbas’ request to hold an extraordinary session of the Council in Geneva to ratify the Goldstone Report, as well as support for the report in the deliberations which will be held in the Security Council between October 10 and 14 (Wafa News Agency, October 11, 2009).

Saeb Erekat, head PLO negotiator, said that Mahmoud Abbas had asked that the Goldstone Report be presented to the Human Rights Council. He added that the Palestinian Authority chairman had instructed the Palestinian representative in Geneva to call on the Arab-Muslim world and the unaligned countries to meet to present the report again (Al-Jazeera TV, October 9, 2009). In addition, Libya and the Palestinians are planning to introduce the Goldstone Report into the General Assembly’s monthly discussion of the Middle East. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki said that the Palestinians were trying to convince UN members support the Goldstone Report.

Violent incidents on the Temple Mount abate.

The Friday, October 9, prayers on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria ended with relative quiet despite the incitement campaign to violence in Jerusalem. In the Gaza Strip Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organized mass demonstrations. In Judea and Samaria there was a general protest strike, and marches and rallies in the cities. Hamas issued a press release accusing the Palestinian Authority security forces of preventing marches to support Al-Aqsa mosque.

Hamas and Fatah activists said the following about maintaining and even escalating the tension in Jerusalem:

Ismail Haniya, head of the Hamas de-facto administration in the Gaza Strip, gave a speech after the Friday prayers in which he denounced Israel’s actions in Jerusalem, describing them as “implementing the Zionist plan to completely take over Al-Aqsa mosque.” He said Israel’s actions were “especially serious” and that the Palestinians would not give up Jerusalem and would pay any price to maintain the sanctity of Al-Aqsa mosque (Hamas’ Palestine-Info website, October 9, 2009).

Imad Afana, political writer and secretary general of the Hamas faction in the Palestinian Legislative Council, wrote an article calling on Hamas to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel immediately, with the emphasis on Jerusalem. He said the attacks should be of all types, carried out by individuals and groups, with knives and rocks, tractors and explosives, shooting and sniping (Hamas’ Palestine-Info website, October 9, 2009).

Hatem Abd al-Qader, who holds the Fatah Jerusalem affairs portfolio and who often comments on the subject, told a Hezbollah website that the end of the current crisis at Al-Aqsa mosque did not in any way mean that the “danger” threatening Jerusalem had ended. He called on Palestinians to go to the ribat of the Al-Aqsa mosque precinct, to crowd into the mosque during prayers and to make sure there were people there 24 hours a day (alintiqad.com, October 11, 2009). Ribat: an Islamic term for a defensive deployment on the front line with the enemy to defend Muslims from infidels in preparation for jihad.

Verbal infighting between Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas continues

While the Palestinian media deals extensively with the changes of a reconciliation agreement’s being signed, verbal infighting has escalated between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas, focusing on mutual accusations hurled by Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Mashaal. Both gave televised speeches relating to the events in Jerusalem, the Goldstone Report and Fatah-Hamas relations. The main points of the speeches were the following:

Mahmoud Abbas: On October 11 Mahmoud Abbas spoke on Palestinian Television. Mahmoud Abbas strongly attacked Israel for its actions in Jerusalem, which he called “ethnic cleansing.” He claimed that Al-Aqsa mosque had become a permanent target of Israel and “radical Israelis” in their efforts to Judaize Jerusalem. He also said that Jerusalem was “the door and key to peace” and that continuing to harm it “fanned the flames of tension and war in the Middle East and the world.” He claimed that the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem were stopping “the new attack on Al-Aqsa TV and Jerusalem,” and that the Palestinians were determined to defend Jerusalem, “the capital of Palestine.” He also said that no peace agreement would be signed if it did not include the end of the so-called “Israeli occupation” of Jerusalem. The Palestinians, he said, were integrated into the efforts of the Obama administration to advance the peace process. However, they were not influenced by pressure and had not changed their position during the tripartite meeting in New York. [Meeting with Salam Fayyad on October 10,] American envoy George Mitchell made it clear that the condition for to assure “the end of the occupation and the building in the settlements, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders.” Mahmoud Abbas said that the Palestinian Authority was working in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to raise the proposal. However, it had not yet been lodged because there were countries which did not agree to it and the Palestinians wanted to avoid a situation in which they could not achieve the necessary majority in the Council. According to Wafa News Agency, October 11, 2009, he added [apologetically] that he understood the anger caused by the issue and hinted that he was ready to take responsibility (“I have always believed that a senior [leader] is elected when the people trust him, and he has to take responsibility for his people…”). He said he had told the Palestinian Authority representative in Geneva [Ibrahim Kharisha] to call an extraordinary session of the Human Rights Council to discuss and vote on the Goldstone Report. He added that the had asked the permanent Palestinian Authority observer in the UN (Riyad Mansour] to initiate the same action in the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Palestinian Authority, he said, was making every possible effort to end the schism caused by Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. The solution of the crisis was “to ask the people for a verdict and to return to the polls.” He said that the Palestinian Authority did not need Hamas to vouch for its honesty. He said Hamas’ campaign against him had exposed its [true] goal, which was to evade signing the national reconciliation agreement so that it could perpetuate its “emirate” in the Gaza Strip and topple the Palestinian Authority.

In response Hamas said the following: Mahmoud al-Zahar, member of the Hamas political bureau in the Gaza Strip, said that Mahmoud Abbas was the main reason discussion of the Goldstone Report had been postponed, despite his efforts to blame others (Al-Quds TV, October 11, 2009). Ahmed Bahar, deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said that Mahmoud Abbas’ speech “disappointed the hopes” of the Palestinians and it was a continuation of the denial of the rights of the victims of Operation Cast Lead and a cover-up of Israel’s actions (PalToday website, October 12, 2009). Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas spokesman, described the speech as “an evasion of responsibility for postponing the discussion of the Goldstone Report.”

Khaled Mashaal spoke in Damascus, and said the following (Al-Aqsa TV, October 11, 2009):

The Obama administration: Khaled Mashaal said that at the beginning of its term the Obama administration used “a different language” and showed positive signs, but had not translated words into deeds. Obama, he said, had received the Noble Prize for flowery rhetoric and for promises which had not been kept: “The Obama administration gives words to us and deeds to our enemies,” and thus the Palestinians had no support in the their struggle against Israel. Adherence to the path of the “resistance” [violence and terrorism] and the other “rights of the Palestinians:” Khaled Mashaal repeatedly stated that “the resistance is the strategic option to liberate out land and restore our rights.” He stated his adherence to “the right of return,” to Jerusalem and to the “liberation” of Palestinian land from the “foreigners” who occupied it. The Palestinian Authority and the PLO: According to Khaled Mashaal, both were leading the Palestinians to destruction and oppressing the residents of the West Bank. He accused the PA of not opposing Operation Cast Lead, of casting doubt on “the right of return” and of being ready to trade territory. He attacked the PA for accepting President Obama’s invitation to the tripartite meeting in New York. The Goldstone Report: Khaled Mashaal accused the Palestinian Authority of rushing to renege on its support for the report: “When an international report condemns Israel the PA tries to rescue it.” He added that the PA had gotten entangled in excuses for reneging on its support of the report and continued to lie. He said the PA leadership should be held accountable, especially Mahmoud Abbas, and that a “wise” Palestinian leadership should be appointed in its stead, one that understood the interests of the Palestinian people. He claimed that the Palestinian presidency was not legal and had not been since January 2009 according to Palestinian law. He said that [the issue of] the Goldstone Report had caused great anger and that it would therefore be impossible to hold the reconciliation meeting [scheduled for Cairo on October 24].

Khaled Mashaal ignored the fact that the report strongly denounced Hamas’ indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel and called it “…a war crime, and may amount to crime against humanity” (Goldstone Report p. 474).

Fatah’s Central Committee said that Khaled Mashaal’s speech indicated “escalation which did not take into consideration the interests of the Palestinians and was a serious attack on the attempts being made to reach a reconciliation and an agreement” (Ma’an News Agency, October 12, 2009). Hussein al-Sheikh, a member of the Committee, said that Khaled Mashaal’s speech was an expression of the decision made by Hamas to destroy the Egyptian efforts for reconciliation (Agence France-Presse, October 11, 2009).

Reconciliation dialogue between Fatah and Hamas

Palestinian and foreign media have reported that the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip told the Egyptians that the movement did not intend to participate in the final round of the reconciliation dialogue planned for October 24 and that it refused to sign a reconciliation agreement with Fatah on October 26. The reason [or excuse] for its refusal was the Palestinian Authority’s agreement to postpone the discussion of the Goldstone Report (Reuters, October 8; QudsNet website, October 7, 2009). Khaled Mashaal also stated in his speech that it would be impossible to hold the reconciliation meeting. On the other hand, Ismail Radwan and Mahmoud al-Zahar denied the report about the meeting in Egypt and said that the Hamas leadership was still debating the question of whether or not to boycott the next round of talks (Al-Arabiya TV, October 8, 2009).

Hamas’ propaganda campaign against the Palestinian Authority continues

Hamas propaganda campaign against Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority continued this past week as well, with an attempt to exploit the events in Jerusalem and the Goldstone Report to smear the PA: In the Gaza Strip signs were hung by a group of university lecturers working under Hamas aegis. The signs show Mahmoud Abbas in the foreground which an X across his face and in the background “shaheeds” from Operation Cast Lead. The caption reads “Mahmoud Abbas, traitor, [you will go] to the garbage can of history” (Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar website, October 8, 2009). The Hamas leadership refused to denounce the signs and Ismail Radwan justified them, saying that they were the outcome of public rage against Mahmoud Abbas following the postponement of the discussion of the Goldstone Report (Ma’an News Agency, October 7, 2009).

Ihab al-Ghussin, spokesman for the ministry of the interior of the Hamas de-facto administration, said in an interview on Al-Jazeera TV that Hamas intended to bring Mahmoud Abbas to court for his conduct in the Goldstone Report affair. He said that Fathi Hamad, minister of the interior of the Hamas de-facto administration, would appoint a legal committee headed by the advisor to the minister of justice to sue Mahmoud Abbas in the name of the shaheeds who had belonged to the ministry of the interior, in international courts and human rights institutions (Al-Jazeera TV, October 7, 2009).

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Abbas: Jerusalem Is The Key To Solve The Conflict
2. Hamas Promises to Continue Terrorism until Israel Is Destroyed
3. Declarations Regarding the Plan to Establish a Palestinian State

Muslims should embrace the spirit of Emir Faisal I

by Rosie Dimanno – (published in The Toronto Star – 09 december 2002)

“We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race (and) have suffered similar oppression at the hands of powers stronger than themselves…. We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement…. We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home…. People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for co-operation of the Arabs and Zionists, have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stage of our movements.” Emir Faisal

That’s an Arab speaking, to a Jew. If only such words, and such sentiments, would be expressed today.

Alas, these lines were penned in 1919 by Emir Faisal ibn Hussein, in a letter sent to Felix Frankfurter, head of the American Zionist delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, where the vanquished Ottoman Empire was about to be parceled out among the victors of World War I. The Arabs had been victors too, throwing off the yoke of Turkish misrule. It was Faisal’s valiant desert army, with T.E. Lawrence — Lawrence of Arabia — riding alongside its leaders, that had made possible British victory in the Mideast.

In return, Faisal was sold out in Paris by the predetermined Sykes-Picot agreement that gave Syria to the French. Faisal’s unacknowledged government in Damascus lasted just over a year. But he would go on to become the first king of Iraq and his brother Abdullah first King of Jordan. Faisal’s bloodline and Iran’s constitutional monarchy — which had brought nationhood and independence to the squabbling vilayets of ancient Mesopotamia — would ultimately be overthrown, 17 years after his coronation, his young grandson assassinated, the tribal factions falling back into internecine quarrels, with revolution and coups marking the end of the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq. From that came a military junta and, eventually, the rise of a young officer called Saddam Hussein.

Greater Syria 1920

Iraq is now squarely in America’s gunsights. But there was a time when that country was a model of emerging statehood, fledgling democracy and pluralism. Faisal’s first finance minister was a Jew and a strong supporter of Arab self-determination.

But Faisal was a man of extraordinary vision, politically shrewd, bred to statecraft — his father was Sharif Hussein bin Ali of Mecca, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad — both military hero and socially progressive. Tall and lean, Faisal may have stood head and shoulders above the rest. But there were numerous Arabs, Muslims, in his era who confidently seized the reins of post-colonial power; who were wary of European influence and meddling but unwilling to isolate their nascent nations within a Pan-Arab world that — while rich in history and culture — had passed through centuries of political decline and factionalism.

Where are their political and ideological descendants today? Oh, there are a precious few trying to hold back the radical elements of Islam — which threaten the stability of Arab nations as much as they threaten the West. But brave and progressive voices of reason, within the Mideast most especially — in Iran, for example, where students have been demonstrating against the zealotry of the clerics — are more often drowned out by the cacophony of stridency. What we have instead, across too much of the Arab world, are military regimes and dictatorships. Countries, some of them bloated with oil wealth, where minorities — religious and ethnic — are routinely, horrifically persecuted. Some, such as dynastic Saudi Arabia, purport to be allies of the West and are treated as such, valued not just for their oil but their stated commitment to quashing global terrorism, even as they continue to connive against world Jewry. Just last week, in remarks made to the Arabic-language Kuwaiti daily Assyasah, the Saudi interior minister — the man in charge of his country’s investigation into the 9/11 attacks — claimed Jews were behind those terrorist assaults in New York and Washington.

“We know that the Jews have manipulated the Sept. 11 incidents and turned American public opinion against Arabs and Muslims,” Prince Nayef was quoted as saying. “We still ask ourselves: Who has benefited from the Sept. 11 attacks? I think they (the Jews) were the protagonists of such attacks.”

Of course, Jews have always been blamed for the miseries of this planet. In the Middle Ages, they were blamed for the Plague, accused of poisoning wells across Europe, and so were turned out from their homes and their properties confiscated. But with allies like the aforementioned Prince Nayef, who needs Al Qaeda enemies? And don’t forget it took Saudi Arabia five months to so much as acknowledge that 15 of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudis. Osama bin Laden may have been stripped of his Saudi citizenship in 1994, but Riyadh has never officially held the Al Qaeda mastermind responsible for 9/11.

Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islam. It stands for something beyond its own sovereign aspirations. Yet with such “moderate” and well-educated Muslims as Prince Nayef fomenting hatred against Jews, to say nothing of Arab blood money that finds its way into the pockets of terrorism supporters and the families of homicide bombers, how can there ever be any political rapprochement between Muslims and Jews? When Osama becomes the most popular name given to baby boys in Pakistan, where is the evidence of moderate Islam and opposition to terrorism committed in the name of Allah? When Canadian Arab organizations cannot bring themselves to express one word of pity for murdered Jewish children, where is the peace and respect so central to the Muslim faith?

Western Muslims resent having to “apologize” for the wretched radicalism of militant Islamists. But who asked for an apology? A bit of commiseration, of official and accountable disassociation from recent terrorist attacks against Jews inside and outside Israel, would have been more than sufficient. It would have been, in the least, symbolic. It’s true, as some Muslims have noted, that the greater Christian world did not feel it necessary to “apologize” for the murderous crimes of a Timothy McVeigh. More locally, these same spokespeople point out, the black community in Toronto has not been held accountable for a rash of recent black-on-black homicides.

So why should Muslims, or Arabs, be called upon to distance themselves formally from the wretched terrorism of a disproportionate few? Why? Because these are crimes against humanity, perpetrated by terrorizing religious jihadists — obscurantists, as one commentator astutely described them — who have taken their crusade murderously global and thus blasphemed Islam. The fact is, we’re not talking here about isolated incidents and individual hoodlums. We’re talking about a terrorist pandemic that has, at its core, a vilification of the West, a virulent hatred towards Jews and a common denomination of twisted Islamic theology.

They do these terrible things in the name of Allah — the Allah of more than one billion Muslims worldwide — and that’s what must be repudiated, again and again, for however long it takes. Until that time comes, until the silent majority who reject terrorism and anti-Semitism shout it from the rooftops, from the mosques, the least I can do is stand with the Jews, and with the spirit of King Faisal.

Rosie Dimanno

Who was King Faisal of Iraq?

Born in Saudi Arabia in 1883 and died in Berne (Switzerland) in 1933. Member of the Hashemite dynasty and descendant of the tribe of Muhammad. King of greater Syria in 1920 and king of Iraq from 1921 till 1933. Faisal encouraged overcoming cleavage between Sunni and Shiite to foster common loyalty and promote pan-Arabism in the goal of creating an Arab state that would include Iraq, Syria and the rest of the Fertile Crescent. While in power, Faisal tried to diversify his administration by including different ethnic and religious groups in offices. He faced great challenges in achieving this because the region was under European, specifically French and British, control and other Arab leaders of the time were hostile to his ideas as they pursued their own political aspirations for power. In addition, Faisal’s attempt at pan-Arab nationalism inevitably isolated certain religious groups.

With the help of Lawrence, Faisal sided with the British army and organised the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire helping to end the Caliphate. After a long siege he conquered Medina, defeating the defense organized by Fakhri Pasha. Some of Faisal’s critics considered fighting alongside Christians as a betrayal to Islam. This motivated Iqbal to write against him. Though Faisal was a descendant of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, Arab nationalism and independence, not religion, was his main motivation. Faisal also worked with the Allies during World War I in their conquest of Greater Syria and the capture of Damascus, where he became part of a new Arab government in 1918.

In 1919 Faisal led the Arab delegation to the Paris Peace Conference and, with the support of the knowledgeable and influential Gertrude Bell, argued for the establishment of independent Arab emirates for the area previously covered by the Ottoman Empire. His role in the Arab Revolt was described by Lawrence in Seven Pillars of Wisdom, although the accuracy of that book has been criticized by historians. On 3 January 1919, Faisal and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organization signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement for Arab-Jewish cooperation, in which Faisal conditionally accepted the Balfour Declaration based on the fulfillment of British wartime promises of development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and on which subject he made the following statement:

“We Arabs… look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home… I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of the civilised peoples of the world.” Emir Faisal

These promises were not immediately fulfilled, in some cases not until after the de-facto establishment of the Jewish state, but once Arab states were granted autonomy from the European powers years after the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, and these new Arab nations were recognized by the Europeans and the U.N., Weizmann argued that since the fulfillment was kept eventually, the agreement of development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine still held. In the end this hoped-for partnership was not carried out by either side.

In July 1933, right before his death, Faisal went to London where he expressed his alarm at the current situation of Arabs that resulted from the Arab-Jewish conflict and the increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, as the Arab political, social, and economic situation was declining. He asked the British to limit Jewish migration and land sales, for fear that “otherwise in the near future the Arabs would either be squeezed out of Palestine or reduced to economic and social servitude.” He died on September 8, 1933, when he had a heart attack whilst he was staying in Berne, Switzerland.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq

Shared under license: Read License

You may want to read this article as well: Agreement between Emir Faisal and Dr. Weizmann and this article Joint Arab-Jewish Agreement on Jewish Homeland.

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Wafa Sultan about Islam
2. Syria and the 1948 War in Palestine – part 1
3. Syria and the 1948 War in Palestine – part 2