THE ARAB/PALESTINIAN/ISLAMIC POINT OF VIEW. What they say, write, publish and argue about.

___________________________________________________________________

TV Program on the Culture of Martyrdom and Suicide Bombers on Al-Arabiya, August 25, 2005. The following are excerpts from a show about the culture of martyrdom, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV. Reporter: "The martyrdom-seeking campaign by Hamas and Islamic Jihad may have come as a response to the Hebron massacre, but the ideological basis of this campaign is deeply rooted in Hamas' declaration of Jihad against Israel. "These films were not intended to be broadcast. Hamas made them for internal use, and they provide a rare perspective on the movement's efforts to teach its principles to new recruits." Children singing: "Rejoice, oh Bitah, cheer in merriment, oh Nujud, our occupied homeland will be restored through Jihad." Crowd: "Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar."
Male voice on loudspeaker: "What is your goal?" Crowd: "Allah." Male voice on loudspeaker: "What is your constitution?" Crowd: "The Koran." Male voice on loudspeaker: "Who is your leader?" Crowd: "The Prophet Muhammad." Male voice on loudspeaker: "What is your path?" Crowd: "Jihad." Male voice on loudspeaker: "What is your greatest desire?" Crowd: "Death for the sake of Allah." Reporter: "If Jihad is the goal, the self-sacrifice operations against the Israelis were the weapon chosen in the mid-nineties. In a series of operations, Hamas and Islamic Jihad hit the major Israeli cities and caused the deaths of dozens. This was part of the strategy."

Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: "These operations do not target civilians. The Israeli society is a military society. It is well known that they have militarized their society. All Israeli society, its men and its women..."
Reporter: "Hamas' strategy of targeting Israelis has gained the support of must Muslim clerics, to the point that Sheik Al-Qaradhawi appeared on Al-Jazeera TV and issued a fatwa permitting the killing of Israelis in these operations."
Sheik Al-Qaradhawi: "...as I said, when a brother blows himself up today... The brother who blows himself up at the bus station, where all the soldiers who come back are gathering... He does not intend to kill a child or anything, but rather tries to kill people who are soldiers - either soldiers on active duty or soldiers on reserve duty."
Reporter: "Indeed, prominent scholars have described suicide operations for the sake of the homeland as martyrdom operations."
Sheik Muhammad Hussein Fadhlallah: "The martyrdom operations are a part of the war movement, since the issue of war differs from the issue of suicide. Suicide is the killing of oneself for personal reasons. On the other hand, the martyrdom operation means that a person dies for a greater cause."
Reporter: "The culture of Hizbullah is the culture of martyrdom, with which it nurtures the minds of others. Every year, Hizbullah celebrates Martyr's Day. On Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV we see actors playing the role of scared Israelis and Americans who are banished from the Middle East."
Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah: "These martyrdom operations are the shortest way to Allah. They are the must exalted and magnificent way of martyrdom in our generation. The martyrdom operation is the weapon Allah gave this nation, and no one can take it from us. They can take away our cannons, our tanks, and our planes, but they cannot take away our spirit, which yearns for Allah and which is determined to achieve martyrdom."
Reporter: "Salah Ghandour a soldier in Hizbullah's martyrdom army..."
Maha Ghandour, Salah Ghandour's widow: "I met Salah in 1990 and we got engaged seven months later. We were married in 1991, early 1991. Even in his final days he stayed at home with us and told me: 'Say goodbye to me. I am bidding this world farewell.' From when I just married him, I expected his martyrdom at any minute. When we had three children I told him that he was taking his time. I didn't expect to live with him for five years."
Interviewer: "Was it important to you that he worked for the resistance?"
Maha Ghandour: "Of course. Of course. If we had not defended our land, who would have liberated it? Unless women sacrificed their husbands and brothers, this land would never have been liberated. Praise Allah, our homeland was liberated by the blood of the martyrs and the efforts of the mujahideen, some of which are fighting the Jihad to this day."
Reporter: "Hizbullah filmed Salah's operation and final message, and the entire program was aired on Al-Manar TV, which belongs to Hizbullah."
Salah Ghandour's son: "This is the operation that daddy carried out. This is the convoy that came from here, from Palestine. This is his operation..."
Salah Ghandour's daughter: "This is the place of the operation in which he was gone."
Salah Ghandour's son: "This is the car daddy blew up."
Maha Ghandour: "Of course I miss him and remember his words. Sometimes it saddens me, but I love to watch him." Sources: Al-Manar TV, IMRA, MEMRI, International Herald Daily News., Al-Arabiya

English Speaking Al-Qaeda Terrorist: Oh People of the West.... It IsTime for Us to Be Equals – As You Kill Us, You Will be Killed.

 

The following are excerpts from an Al-Qaeda tape featuring a Western Al-Qaeda terrorist, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on August 9, 2005. Al-Arabiya claims he is Irish.

Terrorist: Oh people of the West, don't be fooled by the lies of Blair and Bush that you are free nations, for the only freedom that you have is the freedom to be slaves of your whims and desires. Your children are free to be deprived of their childhood and their innocence. Your women are free to be used as tools of business and entertainment, and all of you as a whole are the slaves of con men and women who rule you. They are your real enemies. If you only knew – they are the ones who drag your countries to the pit of America's group of scavengers, who seek to ravage the entire globe for the interests of a handful of gangsters and corporate companies. Democracy, human rights, and freedom are all but hollow illusions, with which they tranquilize inhabitants of the human farms which they control. The Muslim world is not your backyard. The Muslim world is not Germany, Japan, or South America. The honorable sons and daughters of Islam will not sit down, watching you spread your evil and immorality and infidelity to our land. The honorable sons of Islam will not just let you kill our families in Palestine, Afghanistan, Kashmir, the Balkans, Indonesia, the Caucuses, and elsewhere. It is time for us to be equals – as you kill us, you will be killed, as you bomb us, you will be bombed.  Source: Memri.

Egyptian Professor Abd Al-Sabour Shahin: Muslims Had Nothing to Do with 9/11 Attack on the Empire State Building

The following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian professor Abd Al-Sabour Shahin, which aired on Saudi Channel 1 on August 8, 2005.

Shahin: I believe a dirty Zionist hand carried out this act. Zionism has taken the opportunity to escalate the war in Palestine, killing hundreds of thousands so far, while we watch from the sidelines in astonishment and ask: What's going on ?

Our enemies weave many lies about us, which we are not necessarily aware of. For example: One day, we awoke to the crime of 9/11, which hit the tallest buildings in New York, the Empire State Building (sic). There is no doubt that not a single Arab or Muslim had anything to do with these events. The incident was fabricated as a pretext to attack Islam and Muslims. The plan was to take over the world's energy sources, and to achieve this control by force and not by agreement or negotiations, by interests, free trade, or anything like that. This is what they wanted. So this incident was fabricated - and Allah knows that the Arabs and Muslims are innocent of it - in order to serve as a pretext to attack Islam and the Muslims. All of a sudden, after we were used to consider America to be a rational and balanced country... All of a sudden, it violates international conventions, cancels treaties, ignores the U.N., acts on its own accord, attacks nations, kills innocent people, and claims it has the right to do so - and all this is based on lies. These were lies from beginning to end, and we were not used to lying - not in policy, not in our discourse, and not in the media. Imagine what crisis the Arab and Islam nation finds itself in, in the midst of these peculiar events, which we cannot explain or believe. All of a sudden, we were framed for an international crime, on the basis of lies. Source: Memri.

Hamas Radio:  Jaffa is the same as Gaza, Tel Aviv the same as Rafah.

An Interview with Hamas Leader Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar

"We do not and will not recognize a state called Israel. "..."Israel has no right to any inch of Palestinian land. This is an important issue. Our position stems from our religious convictions. This is a holy land. It is not the property of the Palestinians or the Arabs. This land is the property of all Muslims in all parts of the world. We regard the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem, and the West Bank as a geographical unit, as mentioned by resolutions 242 and 338, which have not been implemented. We are currently talking about this area.".

The following are excerpts from an interview with Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahar that appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat on August 18, 2005.
The following are the excepts from the interview(1): What Next in Gaza

Q: "Will Hamas continue the resistance after the disengagement plan is implemented?"

A: "Our plan is not to liberate the Gaza Strip, nor is it to liberate the West Bank or to liberate Jerusalem. Our plan in the first stage is to liberate the lands occupied in 1967. Those who view it as a strategic solution and those who view it as an interim solution have agreed upon this plan. Therefore, we will not take over the Gaza Strip and live there peacefully while the Zionist enemy is detaining thousands of our sons and occupying the West Bank. The resistance must move to the West Bank to expel the occupation."

Q: "Will the calming down [Tahdiah] end with the completion of the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip?"

A: "The tahdiah is scheduled to finish at the end of 2005. It was contingent on the release of the prisoners and stopping the attacks. Israel has not abided by these conditions. Our goal was not to hit Israel for the sake of hitting Israel , but to attack the occupation. I stress that the resistance was what drove the occupation out of the Gaza Strip."

Q: "Will Hamas resume its operations in Israeli towns after the withdrawal?"

A: "Firstly, there are no Israeli towns. These are settlements. If the aggression and occupation continue, the Palestinian people will have no alternative but to defend themselves. The Palestinian people are not killing the occupiers or being killed out of fun or madness. The life spent by our generation in killing, imprisonment, and exile is not the life that we want for our sons. We want them to live in security and peace and to live in a homeland in which they are able to move and not to live as slaves of the Israeli enemy."

Q:  "In other words, the resistance of Hamas in the future will be in response to Israeli actions."

A: "No, our position depends on two things: the withdrawal from the Palestinian territories and the extent of the aggression against the Palestinian people." Our Position Stems from Our Religious Convictions

Q:  "You talk about attacks on the Palestinian territories as if you recognize the existence of Israel."

A: "I strongly disagree with your statement. We do not and will not recognize a state called Israel. Israel has no right to any inch of Palestinian land. This is an important issue. Our position stems from our religious convictions. This is a holy land. It is not the property of the Palestinians or the Arabs. This land is the property of all Muslims in all parts of the world. We regard the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem, and the West Bank as a geographical unit, as mentioned by resolutions 242 and 338, which have not been implemented. We are currently talking about this area."


PA-Hamas Reactions

Q:  "Let us talk about the relationship between Hamas and the Palestinian authority. Has there been friction recently?"

A: "When Mahmoud Abbas (Abu-Mazen) was elected, we started talks. Some people in Fatah and the Palestinian authority told Abu-Mazen that he was giving Hamas more than it deserved at the expense of Fatah, and that his policy was leading to the destruction of Fatah, as proven by the success of Hamas in the first and second rounds of the municipal elections. They claimed that we fixed the elections. This was a joke, because no opposition has been able to rig elections. "Some officials of the Palestinian Authority told Abu-Mazen that they could resolve the situation with Hamas militarily. The Interior Ministry, under Nasr Yusuf, issued leaflets saying that anyone firing rockets at the Zionist enemy will be shot. This was an attempt to repeat what happened in 1996 to protect the Israeli borders, arrest those who fire rockets, and confiscate the weapons. Nasr Yusuf was engaged in a confrontation around the Jabalya refugee camp area and deployed armoured vehicles, which the Palestinian people had not seen before. However, he quickly realized that he could not resolve the situation militarily. Now, they are seeking dialogue, and we welcome that."

Q:  "In his recent speech in the Palestinian Legislative Council, Abu Mazen was unyielding."

A: "We responded to the speech. He said that only one authority should exist, and we want one authority. However, regrettably, the only authority that exists is the authority of Israel. Neither Abu-Mazen nor Nasr Yusuf can move from here to there without the permission of the Israeli army. We want a single Palestinian authority, but a strong authority can only exist through elections. Do we have security services and ministries to form an alternative authority? We want a single authority, but we do not want it to be corrupt. "We want an elected authority that represents all the Palestinian people and not an authority that disputes with the people about their livelihood. They are excluding the members of Hamas from jobs in the educational, health, and other fields. In such conditions, we cannot talk about an authority, but about authoritarian rule. If the Palestinian people have rejected Israel's oppression, do you think that they will accept Palestinian oppression? "There is confusion between the resistance and the chaos caused by the struggle in the Fatah movement. The only legitimate weapon is the weapon of resistance which does not kill innocent people and it not used to resolve factional or family disputes. This weapon forced the occupation to withdraw. We will keep our weapons, because no one can guarantee that the occupation will not return. We hear the threats of the occupation throughout the day and at night. Which do you consider is the legitimate weapon? Is it the weapon that disappeared during the confrontation period, and is used in celebrations, or is it the weapon used to maintain steadfastness and defend the people? Is it the weapon that has driven the enemy out or the weapon that is defending the enemy?" Hamas Will Assume Power Only Though Elections

Q:  "Is Hamas interested in seizing power?"

A: "I do not accept the word 'seize' On the issue of education, we want to teach the people our history, and we insist that the people must learn the Quran. Even if the Quran attacks the Jews in some of its verses, the people must read it. We cannot agree to the manipulation of the Quran and the religion. We are against any economic cooperation with Israel . We want a local Palestinian economy so that others do not influence it. We want investment, but without kickbacks, bribes, and commissions. If we can make the interest rate zero in this economy, based on Arab, Islamic, and international investment, then this would be an achievement. We want to spread the culture of resistance. We want tourism, but tourism of a people that have dignity. We will change the names of the settlements to represent the martyrs who died attacking them. We will tell the tourists that the honest rifle was able to achieve victory."

Q: "Does Hamas have a plan to assume power?"

A: "Only through elections."

Q:  "Hamas did not participate in the first legislative elections because it regarded them as the product of the Oslo Agreement. What changes have taken place to prompt Hamas to change its position?"

A: "The Legislative Council used to be called the Palestinian Council. It was not legislative. It consisted of 88 members. We were talking then about a transitional period. Now we are talking about a liberation period and 132 representatives. I guess the current set up is the product of the Oslo Accords and the situation we find ourselves in the product of the British Mandate and the ongoing Israeli occupation. We will participate in the elections based on a program to end the Oslo Accords."

Q:  "Will Hamas participate in the presidential elections?"

A: "What is the problem in that? We represent an alternative to the Authority. We want to serve the people, and the people want servants and not masters. We are part of a larger movement called the international Islamic movement."


Israel Fears that Gaza Would Become Hamas Land; Let Israel Die

Q:  "Israelis fear that Gaza could become the land of Hamas after the withdrawal."

A: "Let Israel die."

Q: "Is this an encouragement for the Palestinian Authority to clamp down on Hamas with an iron fist?"

A: "No one can crackdown on us with either an iron fist or a golden fist."

Q: "Have you prepared to enter the settlements?"

A: "We will enter the settlements and sully the dignity of Israel with our feet. We will stand on the ruins of the Israeli settlements and tell our
people we have prevailed. This is nonnegotiable. We will secure the Gaza Strip and prevent anyone from occupying it again. In past experiences, government land was stolen. "The land of the evacuated settlements should serve as the lungs for the economy to breath. Schools, playgrounds, agriculture, and industry should be established on this land. This is our position, which we expressed in the meeting of the national committee formed to oversee the withdrawal. The government to be formed after the elections will determine the future of this land. "

Q: "In other words, there is an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas about the future of the settlements' land."

A: "Yes. The Palestinian Authority has the right to manage the land after consulting with the committee which consists of representatives of the national and Islamic factions. "

Q: "Is there a plan for Hamas leaders abroad to return to Gaza?"

A: "We will never give up our right of return. All of Palestine is our land. When any part of it is liberated, any Palestinian and Muslim will have the right to come. This does not mean that this is consistent with the current Isralei withdrawal form Gaza."

Q: "Therefore, will the leaders of Hamas abroad return to Palestine?"

A: "This is up to them. However, the Hamas movement has international dimensions and relations that it must maintain. Therefore, those who maintain these relations must stay abroad. "


"We Do Not Consider the West as an Enemy but we Believe Christian Zionism is Criminal"

Q:  "What is the relationship. between Hamas and Europe?"

A: "All the Europeans that we have met admit that the European position is hypocritical and subservient to U.S. pressure. They look forward to freeing themselves from such pressures. If you want democracy to express the will of the Palestinian people, wait for the results of the elections. If you regard the Palestinian liberation movement, of which Hamas is part, as a terrorist movement, you must look at history. Was De Gaulle a terrorist? Were those who worked to liberate their countries from occupation terrorists? We do not consider the West as an enemy but we believe Christian Zionism is criminal." Source: Memri.

Endnote:
(1) http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=1294

 

Review of Arab editorials

AUGUST 2005
A roundup of commentary from Arab newspapers.

Between a rock and a hard place

The London-based Al Hayat said on August 11 that it was only a matter of time before Iran would use its civilian nuclear program to make weapons. The Saudi-financed daily commented that Iran's quest for nuclear weapons was "completely in line with the nature of the ruling regime in Tehran." It described the Iranian regime as "ideologically and geographically expansionist," adding it was now being "refreshed with a hard-line president to complete the conservative team that runs the affairs" of the country. It went on to say while Israel's nuclear bombs must be mentioned, "one must also affirm that Iran's possession of such bombs will not correct the current imbalance between the Arabs and Israel." In fact, the paper added, it would increase the imbalance because the Arab countries "will find themselves between a rock and a hard place, regardless of Tehran's anti-Israeli slogans that have always been for local consumption and a pretext for foreign intervention in the area".

Washington's difficult situation

The London-based Al Quds Al Arabi on August 11 said that Iran's decision to reactivate its nuclear reactors had confused US and European governments, insisting Tehran had put Washington in a "very difficult situation" because the US cannot escalate its rhetoric against Iran or threaten the use of military force against it. At the same time, Washington cannot remain silent. The independent Palestinian-owned paper said the strongest card in the Iranian leadership's hand was Iraq, adding the US administration had "surrendered" itself to Tehran by failing to bring stability to Iraq through its occupation and because of the current Iraqi leadership's loyalty to Iran. Insisting US options were limited, the paper warned a military strike against Iran would escalate retaliation against US forces in Iraq and maybe Afghanistan, uniting Sunnis and Shias against America. But US silence might turn Iran into a nuclear power in the oil-rich Gulf region, it said. The third option, the paper said, was a US green light to Israel to launch an airstrike against Iran's nuclear reactors, but predicted the Iranian reaction would be forceful, "especially that Tehran possesses long-range missiles that can easily reach Tel Aviv."

Crime against humanity

Egypt's semi-official Al Gumhuriya accused US forces in Iraq of imposing a media blackout on the "barbaric massacres" in Haditha. The mass-circulation daily said in its August 11 editorial that the operations - against "defenseless civilians" - could have been carried out amid silence if it were not for a statement by Iraq's Sunni religious authority revealing the "litter of Iraqi bodies on the streets under complete siege". The editorial, titled "crime against humanity," insisted that those who raised their voices in support of human rights "are now the enemies of humanity in Iraq, mercilessly spilling blood with their military machine, torturing innocent Iraqis in distance prisons". It added that it was time for international organizations to pay more attention in Iraq, saying the country has become a "very brutal example of repressing and destroying humans".

Compensation for Gazans?

Jordan's Al Arab Al Yawm on August 11 wondered how the people of Gaza would behave after Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. It said the people there had become accustomed to a "culture of resistance" against the occupation. The daily, which describes itself as independent, said the Israelis will leave the area with "their gains and compensation, but the problem in Gaza will remain". It argued that the Palestinians and Arabs should insist the Israeli pullout from Gaza be part of the road map peace plan and a step toward withdrawal from the remaining occupied territories. The paper said while Israelis leave with additional assistance and compensation, no one has discussed compensating the Palestinians for the "damage and destruction" of Gaza's infrastructure. It called for international action to reduce the repercussions of the strip's "human and environmental disaster".

Treason can never be justified

Kuwait's Al Rai Al Aam on August 11 criticized calls by some Lebanese Christian leaders for amnesty to members of the disbanded South Lebanon Army (SLA). The force was Israel's proxy militia in southern Lebanon during the 22-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. The pro-government daily said many inside and outside Lebanon were shocked by demands to pardon those "who have blood on their hands" and who had sought refuge in Israel after the liberation of the south. It criticized as "dangerous" dealing with "issues of treason on the pretext of national reconciliation," saying it was impossible to forget the massacres and torture carried out by Israel's collaborators against their compatriots. The paper said European countries had refused to grant asylum to the SLA agents "because of the brutal crimes they committed" and even Israel was treating 3,500 of those in the Jewish state as "nothing more than mercenaries". The Kuwaiti paper insisted demands for an amnesty should not be sectarian-based because "treason is a crime beyond any sect, and cannot be justified for any reason".

Iran nuclear crisis at "crucial point"

Qatar's Al Raya commented in its August 10 editorial on the growing crisis between Iran and Europe following Tehran's decision to resume uranium enrichment. It said the crisis had now reached a "crucial point." The pro-government daily said the meeting of the IAEA that began in Vienna on August 9 to discuss Iran's nuclear program put the issue at a decisive crossroad. It said the IAEA was expected to either issue a warning to Iran to reverse its decision and continue negotiations, or face the UN Security Council and possibly international sanctions. "The latter option is the more serious one because it will pull the region into a new state of tension," the paper warned. It insisted a peaceful solution to the crisis was still possible though there was a Western trend, led by the US, to take a firm position against Iran. The daily said finding a peaceful solution needed more "reasonable and wise political voices to face the threats and defiance...otherwise, there will be a confrontation with undesirable repercussions."

Western hypocrisy

Syria's state-owned Tishreen daily on August 10 said the escalating pressure on Iran coincided with the 60th anniversary of the US attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It commented the "size of the hypocrisy of the powerful countries" was revealed as the US continued to develop its nuclear arsenal during the past six decades, and by the recent revelation that Britain had provided Israel with nuclear weapon capabilities. "The hypocrisy was revealed in how the powerful nations deal with the peaceful nuclear ambitions of the developing world," the paper insisted, "which would allow the building of peaceful programs to serve development - a right that is guaranteed by the nonproliferation treaty."

Resisting Israel is a duty

Lebanon's independent As Safir on August 10 said the issue of the Shia Hizbullah group's weapons was not the weapons themselves, but the position regarding Israel. It added having armaments against Israel was a means, not an end. The question of Hizbullah's weapons, it insisted, was whether Israel is regarded as a neighboring country or an enemy. "If we regard Israel as an enemy, then the logical result is the need to resist it with all weapons and means available during the armed conflict before reaching a just, durable and comprehensive peace," the daily commented. It added that when this peace is achieved, the issue becomes more complicated, "and we should then face and answer whether we regard Israel as just a neighboring country or a state with ambitions in controlling our economy or political decisions." The mass-circulation paper said Israel's policies since its inception toward the Palestinians and Arabs confirms Lebanon's choice of seeing the Arab-Israeli conflict as one that never ends, even if the conflict is not armed. "Therefore," it said, "we consider resisting Israel as a duty, even if the resistance is not armed."

Palestinian police force needs national support

The mainstream Palestinian Al Hayat Al Jadeeda on August 10 called for national support of the Palestinian police force. It said international and Arab assistance was greater than the local support. The pro-government daily said the security institution required the highest form of backing to enable it to achieve its mission to serve the people. It said the force needed the cooperation of the people to respect the law and the security personnel, adding that the police force needed new equipment and technology to enable it to move quickly against violations of law.

Blair's "repressive measures"

The London-based Al Quds Al Arabi on August 10 blasted British Prime Minister Tony Blair for announcing restrictive measures to confront terrorism. It said the measures would have the opposite effects because of their "provocative and racist nature." The independent Palestinian-owned daily accused Blair of behaving like a "third world leader who changes laws like he changes his socks, consolidating dictatorship, centralizing power in his hands and tightening the noose around the neck of his citizens." It opined that while the prime minister said he would issue regulations that would ban incitement against terrorism, he was himself practicing "the worst kind of incitement against the Muslim community when he indirectly accused them of terrorism." The paper added that Muslims in Britain were now living in fear from the official and media incitement, saying they had become a target of hate crimes by extremists. It insisted the Arab regimes would naturally welcome and praise Blair's "repressive measures" that they themselves use against their people.

Iraqis are all in the same boat

Jordan's Al Rai commented that differences among Iraq's political forces on the new constitution were a cause of concern for Iraq, the Arabs and the world in general. The mass-circulation daily said in its August 9 editorial that Iraqis could prove "their wisdom and courage by aborting all plans aimed at pushing them towards a civil war or divisions, and if they went massively to the polls to choose their representatives." It argued it was time Iraqis realized they were all in the same boat and that "the language of threats from this or that party will not contribute except to more differences, sedition and to Iraq's division, which is not in anyone's interests." The daily insisted it was in no one's interests to delay the political process by trying to give more power to one party over another, adding that agreeing on a draft constitution was a common responsibility that must be based on understanding and consensus.

Changing regimes do not require US invasions

The London-based Al Quds Al Arabi on August 8 commented on last week's bloodless military coup in Mauritania that toppled the regime of Moawiya Wald Tayaa. It said the coup proved changing regimes did not require US invasions, but internal forces that had the interests of their country at heart. The independent Palestinian-owned daily argued that while some Arab intellectuals have their reservations about military coups, these were better than those taking place with "American tanks and fighters...as has happened in Iraq." It said the perpetrators of the coup in Mauritania indicated awareness in their understanding of the international and regional equations when they promised democracy and limited their authority for a specific period. "We hope the Mauritanian coup infects other Arab countries and regimes," the paper commented, "especially those which deny the existence of something called the people."

Mission of humans is construction, not destruction

Another London-based daily, Ash Sharq Al Awsat, said on August 8 that one of the greatest challenges facing new Saudi King Abdullah was Islamic cultural education. It said this was important "after the extremist forces have in the past years exploited the sentiments of people to spread the culture of hate and incitement, which succeeded in turning Saudi youth into their own enemies." The Saudi-owned daily argued that since Saudi society was surprised when some of its youth turned into "terrorists killing innocent people", putting the kingdom in an awkward position, it was now necessary to review the basis of extremist educational and cultural thinking. It insisted that it was time to seriously educate the culture of forgiveness and "love of life, belief that the mission of humans is construction, not destruction...and this is the task of the schools, mosques and the media."

Arabs should ensure peace is achieved in Sudan

Lebanon's English-language Daily Star on August 8 commented that the international community needed to renew its efforts to ensure peace in Sudan. Additional efforts were needed especially after the death of Vice President John Garang, it said. The independent daily complained that the Arab world had done little in this regard and suggested that Saudi King Abdullah could contribute by becoming "actively engaged in promoting peace among Sudan's formerly warring parties." It proposed that Saudi private sector leaders could also play a role in "providing the badly-needed investment in the south of the country, and thus offer Sudanese development and prosperity as an alternative to war." The paper warned there are "too many tragedies around us in the Middle East and North Africa to allow the volatile situation in Sudan to degenerate into another regional disaster," adding that Arab action could "go a long way in ensuring that a lasting peace is achieved in Sudan."

On nuclear arsenals and double standards

Jordan's independent Al Ghad on August 8 blamed Western "double standards" for the "collapse of the entire world order." It said the international community must take responsibility and admit the "tragedies and crimes hidden by history." In a commentary by former Jordanian ambassador to the United Nations, Hassan Abu Naama, the daily said the world should not be surprised by the "violence, evil, rage and hatred because people don't forget and history cannot hide the truth forever." It referred to a recent BBC TV report revealing that Britain had secretly provided Israel with the ability to develop its nuclear arsenal after France and the US had refused to supply the Jewish state with the necessary material. The paper accused Britain of also having "planted the seeds" of hatred and violence when it promised a homeland for the Jews in Palestine with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. "Now we see Britain, after the US, was the most eager to punish Iraq for owning delusional weapons of mass destruction and is now leading a campaign against Iran's peaceful nuclear program," the paper argued. "Yet we don't hear a word on Israel's nuclear arsenal."

Consolidating security in times of chaos

Syria's state-owned Al Thawra daily said on August 8 that President Bashar Al Assad's visit to Iran came within the framework of continuing consultations. The paper said relations between the two were strong due to Syria's respect for the keenness of Iran, since its 1979 Islamic revolution, not to threaten its neighbors or the world. The paper said that Iran's newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was chosen as the "more capable in continuing to lead Iran and its relations with other countries, starting with Syria, especially during these difficult times facing the region in terms of the "horrifying scheme that is targeting" both countries. It added that Assad's visit to Tehran was to deepen their cooperation to consolidate "security and peace in a region in times of chaos." Source:  Middleast News.
 

Photos from L to R:  #1. The bodies of Palestinians killed during the Israel army raids in Gaza lie in a morgue in the town of Rafah, May 20, 2004. Defying international fury and a rare U.S. rebuke, Israel expanded its bloodiest Gaza Strip  raid in years on Thursday after killing 39 Palestinians in three days of fighting in the Rafah refugee camp. (Goran Tomasevic/Reuters) . #2. Three Israeli bulldozers move towards the Palestinian refugee camp of Rafah, during an ongoing military operation, May 20, 2004. Israel defied international fury at the killing of nearly 40 Palestinians in the Rafah camp, a militant stronghold, to expand its bloodiest Gaza Strip  raid in years on Thursday. (Gil Cohen Magen/Reuters).

Photos from L to R: #1. A Palestinian passes homes destroyed during an Israeli army raid at the Rafah refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip , May 20, 2004. Defying international fury and a rare U.S. rebuke, Israel expanded its bloodiest Gaza Strip raid in years on Thursday after killing 39 Palestinians in three days of fighting in the Rafah refugee camp. (Suhaib Salem/Reuters) . #2. Palestinians gather around the bodies of six of eight Palestinians killed in an Israeli missile strike at a mosque prior to prayer during their funeral in the Rafah refugee camp, southern Gaza Strip, Thursday, May 20, 2004. Dozens of Palestinians have been killed or wounded in the last 2 days. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)

Photos from L to R: #1. Palestinian sisters of Ragab Barhum mourn during his funeral in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah on the third day of a massive Israeli military operation in the area near Gaza's border with Egypt.(AFP/Mahmud Hams). #2.  Israeli soldiers set down into a grave, the coffin of Israeli army soldier Sergeant Alexei Hayat, during his funeral at the Mt. Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem, Thursday, May 20, 2004. Hayat was one of 11 Israeli soldiers killed in two separate bomb attacks by Palestinian militants on armored vehicles in Gaza last week. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty).

 

 

 

 

 

Photos from L to R: #1. sraeli left wing Peace Now activists holds signs during a a demonstration against Israel's ongoing operation in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza Strip he Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday May 20, 2004. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit). #2. Israeli police officers detain a left-wing activist during a demonstration against Israel's ongoing operation in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, across from the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday May 20, 2004. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

Photos from L to R: #1. Israeli left wing Peace Now activists holds signs during a a demonstration against Israel's ongoing operation in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, across from the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday May 20, 2004. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit). #2.  Israeli police officers detain a left-wing activist during a demonstration against Israel's ongoing operation in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, across from the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday May 20, 2004. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit). MORE PHOTOS NEXT

Palestinians: "Gaza withdrawal is victory for Islam". Major and Dangerous Campaigns Of hate Against the Jews!!
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Sharia [Islamic Law] Rulings Council and Rector of Advanced Studies, Islamic University: "We the Palestinian nation, our fate from Allah is to be the vanguard of the war against the Jews until resurrection as the prophet Muhammad said: 'Resurrection will not arrive until you will fight the Jews and kill them.'

Photo: The Palestinian Authority is inciting the current wave of violence through its official media. Jews and Americans are the prime targets. Billboard on the Palestinian Television Network.

Dr. Hassan Khater: "Muhammad said in his Hadith: 'The Hour [of Resurrection] will not arrive until you fight the Jews and the rock and the tree will say: O Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'

"The Prophet said: the Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims  fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews,  rejoice [in it], rejoice in Allah's victory. The Muslims will kill the Jews,  and he will hide... "The Prophet said: the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock  and tree will say: oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim this is a Jew behind me,  come and kill him!" [PA TV, September 10, 2004 - view this clip here].


Israel's leaving the Gaza Strip is being presented by the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas as a victory for Islam. Palestinian Authority religious leaders and Hamas have for years been  presenting their conflict with Israel as part of an unbroken religious war,  which Allah is waging against Jews - a conflict whose climax will be the extermination of the world's Jews. (Palestinian Media Watch has reported on this ideology. See documentation below.) Within this context, Israel's leaving its towns in Gaza now, is being presented as a victory of Islam in this war. Palestinian Authority Television hosts and participants alike are calling the Israeli moves from its towns as a 'great victory for Allah'. The Hamas website publicized numerous posters that declare the same religious victory theme. The Hamas poster below, showing a face of Hamas  founder Ahmad Yassin laughing, superimposed over a somber religious Jew,  presents the Sharon evacuation plan as a victory of the Koran over the Talmud. The words on the poster: "Our Koran proves that we were right and your Talmud proves that you were wrong..." Another Hamas poster shows a rifle and the Koran with the words: "With those two together the victory has been achieved." One example from the Palestinian Authority's official daily: "...The manager of the office of the Ministry of the Waqf in northern Gaza,  Farid Al-Nayard, said, '...last Friday's sermon was under the title 'On that  day the Believers will be glad with the victory of Allah.''" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 13, 2005]. In June 2004 Palestinian Authority religious leader Ibrahim Mudayris already  preached the religious significance he saw in Sharon's plan, connecting it  to an event described in the Koran, specifically focusing on Israel's plan  to destroy the towns before leaving. The Koranic event and the present expulsion, according to this senior PA  imam, have numerous parallels: 1. Attacks by Muslims against Jews 2. Jews become fearful 3. Jews destroy their own homes 4. Jews flee their towns. Mudayris' sermon of June 4, 2004. "If you [today] trust in Allah, like Muhammad's companions, by Allah, it  will not be impossible for Allah to expel the Jews. "[Allah] fought against them [as is written in the Koran] through their weak  hearts because they are cowards. When they saw someone killed, terror  entered their hearts and they started destroying their own homes. "And now the media reports that they will leave the settlements. Indeed,  they will leave Gaza. They will leave submissive, by Allah's will. They will  leave defeated, like it or not, in the face of this great victory." [Ibrahim Mudayris, PA TV, June 4, 2004]. The following is the text Mudayris was referring to in the Koran: "He [Allah] is the one who has caused those of the People of the Book [i.e.  Jews] who disbelieved to leave their homes unto the first expulsion. You did  not think that they would leave, whereas they [the Jews] were certain that  their fortresses would defend them against Allah. But Allah reached them  from a place where they did not expect, and cast terror in their hearts so  that they destroyed their homes with their own hands and the hands of the  believers...!" [Surat Al-Hashar]. Previously reported examples of numerous Palestinian Authority religious and  academic leaders presenting the war against Israel as a religious war that  will end with the extermination of the Jews. 1. Muhammad Abd Al Hadi La'afi, responsible for Religious Teaching and  Instruction in the Office of the Wakf: "The battle with the Jews will surely come... "The Prophet spoke about in more than one Hadith and the Resurrection will  not come without the victory of the believers [the Muslims] over the  descendants of the monkeys and pigs and with their annihilation." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 18, 2001]. 2. Ibrahim Mudayris, Head of the Association for Memorizing the Koran. "The Prophet said: the Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims  fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews,  rejoice [in it], rejoice in Allah's victory. The Muslims will kill the Jews,  and he will hide... "The Prophet said: the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock  and tree will say: oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim this is a Jew behind me,  come and kill him!" [PA TV, September 10, 2004 - view this clip here]. "The Jews will not live under our rule agreeably permanently, since they  have been treacherous in nature throughout history. A day will come when all  shall rest from the Jews.. "Listen to your Beloved [Muhammad], who tells you about the most dire end awaiting the Jews. The tree and the stone want the Muslim to bring every Jew  to his end. You all know the Hadith." [PA TV, May 13, 2005 - view this clip here]. 3. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi. "All the weapons must be aimed at the Jews, Allah's enemies, the cursed  nation in the Koran, whom Allah describes as monkeys and pigs, worshippers  of the calf and idol worshippers. "Nothing will deter them except the color of blood in their filthy nation .  unless we blow ourselves up, willingly and as our duty, in their midst. "We will fight against them and rule over them until the Jew will hide  behind the tree and rock and the tree and rock will say: 'Muslim! Servant of  Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." [PA TV, August 3, 2001]. 4. Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Sharia [Islamic Law] Rulings Council and Rector  of Advanced Studies, Islamic University "We the Palestinian nation, our fate from Allah is to be the vanguard of the  war against the Jews until resurrection as the prophet Muhammad said:  'Resurrection will not arrive until you will fight the Jews and kill them.'  We the Palestinians are the vanguard in this issue and in this campaign  whether or not we want this." [PA TV, July 28, 2000]. 5 . Dr. Hassan Khater. "Muhammad said in his Hadith: 'The Hour [of Resurrection] will not arrive  until you fight the Jews and the rock and the tree will say: O Muslim,  servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!' "...Allah meant our land and our people and meant our trees and our stones." [PA TV, December 27, 2004].

Preaching Anti-Jewish Hatred: Transcript from Friday, October 13, 2000, sermon at the Zayed bin Sultan Aal Nahyan mosque in Gaza.
The speaker is Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Member of the PA appointed "Fatwa Council" and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza.

Photos: Broadcast of the message of hate on Palestinian Television.

 

Ahmad Abu Halabiya: "Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are.."

"Don’t ever relinquish your rights. Whatever agreements may be signed, even if agreements are signed on Gaza and the West Bank, we shall not forget Haifa, Acre, the Galilee and Jaffa, the Triangle and the Negev and the rest of our cities and villages! It is only a matter of time! The weak will not remain forever weak. And the strong will not remain forever strong. With the help of blessed Allah, that’s the way the Jews are! Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill the Jews, the Americans, who are like them, and those who stand by them. They are all in one trench against the Arabs and the Moslems. ... It is forbidden to befriend Israelis or to aid them. Don’t love them or enter into agreement with them, don’t help them or sign accords with them. Anyone who does this is one of them. This is the word of Allah, blessed be He. They, they are the terrorists. They should be slaughtered. They should be murdered. Such is the word of Allah."

 

Hamas Radio:  Jaffa is the same as Gaza, Tel Aviv the same as Rafah.

 The following is a translation of a hate mongering and terrorism inciting anti-Israeli song broadcast on Sawt Al-Aqsa, , the Hamas radio station on August 16, 2005: "Al-Qassam warriors, Al-Qassam warriors, Rain rockets on the settlers! Prepare the [missile] launchers and aim them at the settlements, Glorify the name of Allah, the lord of the world! Hero, improve the Qassam rockets, Don't let any Jew sleep! Oh, Qassam, we want you to make land mines, Prepare ambushes for the settlers! The fearless fighters descended upon the settlements May Allah preserve them, the symbol of our honor. They carried the bombs, girded themselves with explosive belts And sang songs of leave-taking [as they made their way] to the highest  heavens. Oh, Hamas, your army swears that Millions of shaheeds are marching to Al-Aqsa! We, oh Qassam, swear allegiance to death! Strap on the belts and load them with TNT! Oh, shaheed's mother, be happy for the shaheed! Your son is in paradise, happy and blissful! (Announcer: Listen, Sharon , to the Hamas announcement: Leave Haifa, Jerusalem and Imwas [ancient Emmaeus, an abandoned Palestine  village in the Ayalon Vally on the road to Jerusalem ] We will be victorious, oh, Bush, We will be victorious, oh, Sharon 2, And you will see that tomorrow If Allah so wills it. The Al-Aqsa Brigades will make you tremble in Haifa and Tel Aviv They will strike you in Safed and Acre , Because we, our dear ones, Do not distinguish between [ Jewish] Palestine and [Arab] Palestine3, For [as] Jaffa is the same as Gaza , Tel-al-Zuhour 4is the same as Rafah, And the Galilee is the same as Hebron . We make no distinction between the parts of the earth of the homeland. [i.e.  the whole of Palestine is ours].

2 A quote from 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Rantisi, who headed Hamas until he died in a
targeted killing on April 17, 2004.
3 Another 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Rantisi quote.
4 One of the Arabic names for Tel Aviv usually used by radical Islamic
Palestinian terrorists groups, mainly Hamas.

'Israel will eventually disappear'

Senior Hamas leader tells Italian newspaper pullout plan a temporary solution; says Palestine will become a Muslim state. Hamas will not compromise on one inch of Greater Palestine, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar told an Italian newspaper earlier this week. Speaking to the Corriere Della Sera newspaper, al-Zahar said Hamas would "definitely not" be prepared for coexistence with Israel should the IDF retreat to its 1967 borders. "It can be a temporary solution, for a maximum of 5 to 10 years. But in the end Palestine must return to become Muslim, and in the long term Israel will disappear from the face of the earth."

Go to hell: Asked about Hamas's intentions to carry out terror attacks in coordination with the disengagement plan, al-Zahar said Hamas has already promised not to initiate violence, and that the group's actions would be in response to Israeli actions. "We won't disrupt the Israeli withdrawal, let them get out of here and go to hell," he said. "The problem will be afterwards, because in the hearts of every Palestinian, the liberation of Gaza must be accompanied by the liberation of Jerusalem and the West Bank."

Hamas has again demonstrated that it is mounting a major challenge.

Photo: Hamas is challenging Fatah's traditional political monopoly.

Initial results suggest that the traditional Palestinian party of power - Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction - has emerged on top in an important round of local elections in the West Bank and Gaza.

But the militant movement, Hamas has again demonstrated that it is mounting a major challenge. Both say they did better than the early results suggest, and there are serious disputes over the outcome in two key Gaza constituencies. But election officials say the initial indications are that Fatah won around 55% of the vote, to Hamas' 35%. According to the officials, Fatah won just over 52 of the municipalities being fought for. Hamas took around 30. And these results matter. They shed light on a process of significant change that is sweeping through the Palestinian political system. Electoral test: The Fatah faction that Mr Arafat founded and led dominated the political scene for decades. Under his leadership elections were rare. But now a phase of democratisation has begun, and Fatah is being put to the electoral test. These municipal polls are to be followed by a general election in a few months time. And Fatah is locked in a major contest with Hamas.

 Israel will eventually disappear

London attack: Al-Zahar said the London bombings, which occurred during the interview, are to be expected in countries that support the United States. "It's no wonder today they have found terror attacks in their home," he said. "I am opposed to attacks against civilians, whoever they are, but why not tell it like it is - if the British soldiers were not in Baghdad and Bazra - there would be mercy for London today." However, al-Zahar stopped short of supporting the attack on the London Underground, but tried to "explain" the acts of suicide bombers. "There is a broad popular people's movement against American arrogant hegemony. World leaders, headed by the Bush and Blair governments, should have been more attentive to the voice of poorer countries."

Foreign Ministry protests: In Israel, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom provided a translation of part of the interview and parts of the Hamas constitution Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom for European Union envoy Javier Solana, in an attempt to explain Israel's rejection for negotiations with Hamas. The Ministry has also embarked on a campaign to discourage Europeans from dealing with Hamas, including an English translation of Hamas's convention, to be distributed to diplomats in a bid to illustrate the movement's radical and dangerous character to the attention of decision makers throughout the world. "Now, when Europe has offered to recognize Hamas on a political level, al-Zahar provides clear statements of what to expect from the organization," Ministry officials told Ynet. "He does not even attempt to speak ambiguously in an attempt to please Europe and finds it difficult to hide the group's happiness at the London bombings."

Al-Qaeda urges attacks on Canadians

A new al-Qaeda manual posted on the Internet is calling for terrorist attacks against Canadians, and specifies that businessmen, politicians, scientists, soldiers and tourists should be targeted, according to U.S. researchers. Canada is one of six nations whose citizens are identified as "human targets" in the Arabic-language publication, which is reported to be the work of senior Egyptian al-Qaeda figure Saif al-Adel. The manual, called The Al-Battar Military Camp, ranks Canadians as the fifth most important "Christian" terrorist targets, behind Americans, Britons, Spaniards and Australians. Italians were ranked sixth. The manual was obtained and translated by the SITE Institute, a terrorism research centre in Washington, D.C. It is the latest edition of a publication that is said to be aimed at new al-Qaeda adherents scattered around the world. "This al-Qaeda magazine is published and circulated through the terrorist group's Web site, along with other propaganda," said Rita Katz, executive director of the institute. "It contains specific military guidance and instructions on how to effectively target al- Qaeda's enemies. There are physical training programs, diagrams of weapons and chapters dedicated to combat strategy. Canadians should take very seriously the fact that their country is identified as a top potential target by al-Qaeda."

Give them the Death they Revere

 

 By Arlene Peck

 The Arabs are bombing, murdering, mutilating, raping and wreaking havoc all over the Judeo/Christian world.  Israel has nothing to do with it…nothing!   The front pages have been completely filled with the latest catastrophic actions from these savage, barbaric Arabs who tortured and slaughtered hundreds of school children and their mothers during the past few days in the horrific school bombings.  Children! Babies, who were forced to drink their own urine, because they were tortured and denied water and food for over two days. One five or six year-old child was reported to have been killed by having a bayonet thrust through his little body when he had the audacity to ask for water from these "brave men" who were holding them hostage. Then if that wasn't bad enough, over twenty of these small children were shot in the back from snipers on the  roof-tops as they were trying to break away to run to the safety of their mothers arms.  

The Muslims are experts in killing babies. I remember the massacre of the Kindergarten in Maaolat some years ago.  More so, I remember covering the war in June of '82 in Lebanon and saw what cowards these vermin were. They excel in bombings and terror attacks on subways, planes and schools.  But when they have to fight man-to-man combat, they disappear or run out with their hands in the air, waving white flags before the first shot is fired. They also captured two French journalists as hostages, so as to influence French domestic laws. This is especially interesting since Mr. Jacques Chirac and France have gone out of they’re way to alienate their western allies and welcome these thugs with open arms into their country.

They want to pressure the French to change their laws on headscarfs. Otherwise, they were going to use the journalists to make a political statement. Folks, this is only the beginning. Within five years the required fashion in Paris will be burqas. Page two in the Times continued with a story of how a female “suicide” bomber wearing an explosive device stuffed with metal bolts killed at least nine people in a Moscow subway station in a blast and injured about a hundred more. This, in addition to the two airplanes that the Muslim fundamentalist’s blew up a few days ago, in Russia. Then over a hundred more countrymen were killed.  I can’t even look at the television and see the nightly death toll of our soldiers in Iraq. We are paying a great price with our soldiers blood to bring freedom to this modern day Babylon.   The reality is, if we don't root out terrorism in all it’s forms, wherever it is, this nightmare that we are watching being played out on the nightly news will eventually reach our shores again, as well as the free nations around the world. Somewhere buried in the LA Times was a story about how these same subhuman savage “militants” who had killed twelve Nepalese workers want more!  More concessions and more blood!  Later in the day I received a graphic video of them, beheading these poor civilians. We are dealing with a mentality that only understands force. 

I've seen it!  The Russians aren't known for being very politically correct.  If I were living through the horror they've gone through these past few days, I'd pressure my government into sending a "laser-guided missile"   dipped in pig blood into every one of those mosques  where they plan, train and finance these attacks,  with a note attached reading, "Never again!"  In fact, now would be a perfect time to drop leaflets on the mosques that plan and train the terrorists that from now on the next thing dropped on them are missiles dropped in pig oil. No more 'restrained action' as they are regularly ordered by our government, the EU and UN. When the next terrorists action happens, do it!  Somebody has to do something!  President Bush is out there trying to defend his policy in Iraq because of these very same terrorists and we are still going on and on and on over locating the WMD’s, when everyone and their Arab brother’s know that they have been moved into Syria.  Who do we think we're kidding?  This effort must be worldwide. Whether it's Afghanistan, Russia, the Philippines, United States or Israel!  It is the freedom of every individual that is at stake here!  When are we going to wake up!   Our lives are being disrupted on a daily basis.

 

TODAY GAZA, TOMORROW?

By Micah Halpern

The Gaza Redeployment is not just about Israel's withdrawal from the area. It is not just about the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians. It never was. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza has always been a measuring stick, a marker, a barometric tool to determine the winds of change in the region. The fateful day approaches. There are many interested parties and many agenda. Let's examine them. The most important agenda to examine is that of the United States. Plain and simple, the United States needs this redeployment to happen and they are exerting a tremendous amount of energy to make it happen. The United States is pressuring Israel not just to leave but to also offer aid to the Palestinians on their way out. The United States is pressuring the Palestinians to let this happen and to stop any provocateurs, any acts of terror, from dismantling the process. 

The United States envisions peace between Israelis and Palestinians. They see the Gaza Redeployment as a massive step towards the fulfillment of that vision. Today Gaza, tomorrow the West Bank. And they want to make certain that the transition takes place quietly.  The United States needs to prove that they can make good on their promise. They promised to support Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, they want to secure his position. They believe in him, more than do many of his local Palestinian constituents. They believe that Abbas wants to bring peace to his people. They want the Palestinian people to view Abbas as a strong leader and they think that the Gaza Redeployment will bring proof to the people that with peace comes good, that if peace emerges and liberalization occurs, their lives will be improved, their voices will be heard. The United States also believes, I would say naively, that the best tactic against Palestinian extremists is pelting them with examples of the good that is gained through peace.  The United States believes in good will gestures. Egypt, on the other hand, wants to regain partial control of the area. The Egyptians are lying low during this process of withdrawal and, as a result, nobody is watching them very closely. They have issues and their own very strong agenda for the Gaza Redeployment. Gaza is an area that for many years was under Egyptian control. That control was vanquished by Israel. The Egyptians do not see the Palestinians as strong and do not believe that they will ever gain strength, even under the leadership of Abbas. And that pleases the Egyptians. A weak Palestinian government leaves the door open for more experienced Egyptians to enter in a pseudo-advisory capacity and wield power in the area. With the Palestinians "in charge" and with the Israelis out of the area, the Egyptians become the doorkeepers, literally and figuratively, of Gaza. It is the Egyptians who will control the border. It is the Egyptians who will observe from the outside what happens on the inside of Gaza, and then determine their next moves.  In the Palestinian world, Egypt, not the United States, is big brother. The Palestinians themselves are split into two groups. There are those Palestinians who hope and those Palestinians who hope to sabotage the Gaza Redeployment.  One group of Palestinians believes strongly in Abbas and they are hopeful that he can and will create a better life not just for their children, but also for themselves. They are the silent majority of Palestinians, not just silent, but silenced by the other group of Palestinians, their louder, more enthusiastic brothers and cousins. This group wants the withdrawal to fail and they intend to use the failure as a metaphor for the leadership of Abbas and as a tool with which to topple his government. This group thinks of Abbas not as their leader but as someone who has sold them out, who by virtue of accepting this unilateral withdrawal is collaborating with the enemy. And they want an all-out war with Israel.

The rest of the Arab world is watching, quietly, carefully offering no support, no advice, no encouragement, no words of warning. They are fearful of civil war. Obviously, the greater Arab world is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, there is nothing that will ever change that agenda. Right now they cannot fathom how the Gaza Redeployment will impact on the lives of average Palestinians. So far, and time is running short, they have offered almost no post-withdrawal aid commitments to the Palestinians. They do not know how to approach this unilateral action taken by Israel. They do know, however, that with the withdrawal comes the threat of a Palestinian civil war. If the Gaza Redeployment fails, they will surely, publicly, blame Israel.  There are others who are looking to place blame. And the blame will fall squarely on the broad shoulders of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon expects, truly believes, that this withdrawal will help protect more Israeli lives, that it will save soldiers and settlers and all citizens from unnecessary death due to terror. He undertook the Gaza Redeployment as a unilateral action for the sake of Israelis, that was his agenda.

The prime minister set into action not a negotiated settlement but a unilateral move because he saw it as being in the best interests of Israelis.  Former ministers and members of the Sharon government, Benjamin Netanyahu and Natan Sharansky, accept that the withdrawal is now fact, but want payback for Israelis. They are shouting that now is the time to make demands on the Palestinians. Use the leverage, they say, tie the withdrawal to action against terror or to education or to democracy. Turn this into a big agenda item, not a throw away. Some of their followers, the people in orange, want to topple Sharon for selling out, for selling his soul. It is unlikely that they will bring Sharon down over the disengagement. Sharon's opposition party, Labor, has similar thoughts but they are more subtle in their actions. The liberal Labor party is hoping to support Sharon in the government during the Gaza Redeployment and then bolt. Labor intends to use the redeployment as a way to resuscitate itself. Before they joined Sharon's government, they will claim, the Gaza Redeployment would never have happened. They joined and the national agenda changed so it is only fair that they take credit for the withdrawal. They want Sharon to stick it out for a few more months giving them the time they need to build themselves up and catapult back into the first leadership chair. Failure will belong to Sharon, success belongs to them. Failure and success are not at issue when it comes to the European Union and the United Nations. The Gaza Redeployment has been on their agendas for a long time. The European community and the United Nations believe that the Israelis are doing what they should have done years ago. They believe that they are not doing enough. The EU and the UN do not see the Gaza Redeployment as a unilateral initiative undertaken by Israel. They see it as an entitlement of the Palestinian people and as the correction of Israeli human rights violations. Israel should not be congratulated, it should be apologizing for not withdrawing from Gaza long ago. Their agenda is very different from that of the United States, but their wish is the same, today Gaza, tomorrow the West Bank.  As we all know, a lot can happen between today and tomorrow.
 

Fear and Nightmares re-awakened

Islamic fundamentalism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The anti-war movement and the Left is just as capable as other politicians of playing the politics of fear. There is very little hard evidence of foreign fighters in Iraq, the majority of the insurgents are Iraqis and despite claims in Washington, the Commander in Chief in Iraq, General Casey, recently said that as far as he could discover foreigners were playing a minimal role in the insurgency. "It starts with conclusions and makes up the evidence to support it. The neo-Conservatives didn't come to power in the US as a result of 9/11. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were already in the Defence Department before 9/1."The neo-Conservatives were part of the administration but if you talk to the neo-Cons, which I did, they will tell you candidly that they had very little influence during the early part of the Bush administration, particularly in foreign affairs.

"Are you saying it's a conspiracy?

 It was the events of 11 September that showed the president, they say, that what they had been warning of since the early 1990s was correct - that America faced dangerous threats in a new unipolar world, and the need for America to fight pre-emptive wars. This, as the programme said, brought them back to power in America. They would agree with this. "Are you saying it's a conspiracy?" No. The use of fear in contemporary politics is not the result of a conspiracy, the politicians have stumbled on it. I have simply discovered in the "war on terror" a way of restoring their authority by promising to protect us from something that only they can see. I don't think it will last. Already senior parts of the Establishment are beginning to question the very basis of the politicians' argument - that "al-Qaeda" is a threat like no other which "threatens the life of the nation". In the recent House of Lords ruling which said that the indefinite detention of foreign nationals without trial was illegal, one of the Law Lords - Lord Hoffman - publicly challenged the government's justification. He said: "This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. "

I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. "Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qaeda. "The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. "Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community." " Was the programme trying to change anything?" Yes. "Can the programme be compared to the red pill offered by Morpheus in The Matrix?" Thank you very much. But remember always to read the label before taking the medication. The Power of Nightmares will be broadcast over three nights from 18 to 20 January at 2320GMT on BBC Two. The final part has been updated in the wake of the Law Lords ruling in December that detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial was illegal.-A. Curtiss.

 

How Terrorism Obstructs Radical Islam.

By Dr. Daniel Pipes

Do terrorist atrocities in the West, such as 9/11 and those in Bali, Madrid, Beslan, and London, help radical Islam achieve its goal of gaining power? No, they are counterproductive. That’s because radical Islam has two distinct wings – one violent and illegal, the other lawful and political – and they exist in tension with each other. Not only has the lawful one proven itself more effective, but the violent approach gets in its way. The violent wing is foremost represented by Osama bin Laden, the world’s #1 fugitive. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the popular and powerful prime minister of Turkey, represents the lawful wing. Even as “Al Qaeda has more state adversaries than nearly any force in history,” as Daniel C. Twining observes, political imams like Yusuf al-Qaradawi instruct huge audiences on Al-Jazeera television and visit with the mayor of London. As Shi’ite cleric Muqtada Sadr skulks around Iraq, looking for a role, Ayatollah Sistani dominates the country’s political life.Yes, terrorism kills enemies, instills fear, and disrupts the economy. Yes, it boosts morale and recruits non-Muslims to Islam and Muslims to Islamism. It creates an opportunity for Islamists to press for their favorite causes, like the elimination of Israel or coalition forces out of Iraq. It provides, as Mark Steyn notes, intelligence information on the enemy. And yes, it prompts politically correct talk about Islam being a “religion of peace,” with Muslims portrayed as victims. But, for two main reasons, terrorism does radical Islam more harm than good. First, it alarms and galvanizes Westerners. For example, the July 7 bombings took place during the G8 summit in Scotland, where world leaders were focused on global warming, aid to Africa, and macro-economic issues. In a London minute, the politicians then redirected their attention to counterterrorism. Thus did the terrorists stiffen, as Mona Charen points out, “whatever small residue of resolve remains in flaccid Western civilization.” More broadly, Twining notes, “Al Qaeda’s rise has produced the kind of great power entente not seen since the Concert of Europe took shape in 1815.” (Even the Madrid bombings, an apparent exception, led to a marked strengthening of Spanish and European-wide counterterrorism measures.) Second, terrorism obstructs the quiet work of political Islamism. In tranquil times, organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations go effectively about their business, promoting their agenda to make Islam “dominant” and imposing dhimmitude (whereby non-Muslims accept Islamic superiority and Muslim privilege). Westerners generally respond like slowly boiled frogs are supposed to, not noticing a thing. Thus does MCB delight in a knighthood from the queen, enthusiastic support from Prime Minister Tony Blair, influence within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and £250,000 in taxpayer monies from the Department of Trade and Industry. Across the Atlantic, CAIR insinuates itself into an array of important North American institutions, including the FBI, NASA, and Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper. It wins endorsements from high-ranking politicians, both Republican (Florida governor Jeb Bush) and Democrat (House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi). It organizes a meeting of Muslims with Canadian prime minister Paul Martin. It gets a Hollywood studio to change a feature film plot and a television network to run a public service announcement. It goads a radio station to fire a talk-show host. Terrorism impedes these advances, stimulating hostility to Islam and Muslims. It brings Islamic organizations under unwanted scrutiny by the media, the government, and law enforcement. CAIR and MCB then have to fight rearguard battles. The July 7 bombings dramatically (if temporarily) disrupted the progress of “Londonistan,” Britain’s decline into multicultural lassitude and counterterrorist ineptitude. Some Islamists recognize this problem. One British writer admonished fellow Muslims on a website: “Don’t you know that Islam is growing in Europe??? What the heck are you doing mingling things up???” Likewise, a Muslim watch repairer in London observed, “We don’t need to fight. We are taking over!” Soumayya Ghannoushi of the University of London bitterly points out that Al-Qaeda’s major achievements consist of shedding innocent blood and “fanning the flames of hostility to Islam and Muslims.” Things are not what they seem. Terrorism hurts radical Islam and helps its opponents. The violence and victims’ agony make this hard to see, but without education by murder, the lawful Islamist movement would make greater gains.

"Today Gaza, Tomorrow Jerusalem"

Are Israel’s critics correct? Does the “occupation” of the West Bank and Gaza cause the Palestinians’ antisemitism, their suicide factories, and their terrorism? And is it true these horrors will end only when Israeli civilians and troops leave the territories? The answer is coming soon. Starting on Aug. 15, the Israeli government will evict some 8,000 Israelis from Gaza and turn their land over to the Palestinian Authority. In addition to being a unique event in modern history (no other democracy has forcibly uprooted thousands of its own citizens of one religion from their lawful homes), it also offers a rare, live, social-science experiment. We stand at an interpretive divide. If Israel’s critics are right, the Gaza withdrawal will improve Palestinian attitudes toward Israel, leading to an end of incitement and a steep drop in attempted violence, followed by a renewal of negotiations and a full settlement. Logic requires, after all, that if “occupation” is the problem, ending it, even partially, will lead to a solution. But I forecast a very different outcome. Given that some 80 percent of Palestinians continue to reject Israel’s very existence, signs of Israeli weakness, such as the forthcoming Gaza withdrawal, will instead inspire heightened Palestinian irredentism. Absorbing their new gift without gratitude, Palestinians will focus on those territories Israelis have not evacuated. (This is what happened after Israeli forces fled Lebanon.) The retreat will inspire not comity but a new rejectionist exhilaration, a greater frenzy of anti-Zionist anger, and a surge in anti-Israel violence. Palestinians themselves are openly saying as much. Ahmed al-Bahar, a top Hamas figure in Gaza, says that “Israel has never been in such a state of retreat and weakness as it is today following more than four years of the intifada. Hamas’s heroic attacks exposed the weakness and volatility of the impotent Zionist security establishment. The withdrawal marks the end of the Zionist dream and is a sign of the moral and psychological decline of the Jewish state. We believe that the resistance is the only way to pressure the Jews.” Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, says likewise that the withdrawal is “due to the Palestinian resistance operations. … and we will continue our resistance.”

Others are more specific. At a mass rally in Gaza City last Thursday, some 10,000 Palestinians danced, sang, and chanted, “Today Gaza, tomorrow Jerusalem.” Jamal Abu Samhadaneh, commander of Gaza’s Popular Resistance Committees, announced on Sunday, “We will move our cells to the West Bank” and warned that “The withdrawal will not be complete without the West Bank and Jerusalem.” The Palestinian Authority’s Ahmed Qurei also asserts, “Our march will stop only in Jerusalem.” Palestinian intentions worry even Israeli leftists. Danny Rubinstein, Arab affairs specialist for Ha’aretz, notes that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to leave Gaza only after anti-Israel carnage there had escalated. “Even if these attacks were not the reason why Sharon came up with the idea of disengagement, the Palestinians are certain that that is the case, and this has reinforced their belief that Israel only understands the language of terror attacks and violence.” Israel National News has collected other leftist comments. Yossi Beilin, former justice minister and chairman of the Yahad/Meretz Party: “There is a concrete danger that following the disengagement, the violence will greatly increase in the West Bank in order to achieve the same thing as was achieved in Gaza.” Shlomo Ben-Ami, former foreign minister, Labor Party: “A unilateral retreat perpetuates Israel’s image as a country that runs away under pressure... In Fatah and Hamas, they will assume that they must prepare for their third intifada - this time in [the West Bank].” Ami Ayalon, former General Security Service chief: “Retreat without getting anything in return is liable to be interpreted by some of the Palestinians as surrender.... There is a high chance that shortly after the disengagement, the violence will be renewed.” Eitan Ben-Eliyahu, former Air Force commander: “There is no chance that the disengagement will guarantee long-term stability. The plan as it stands can only lead to a renewal of terrorism.” Events, I predict, will prove Israel’s critics totally wrong but they will learn no lessons. Untroubled by facts, they will demand further Israeli withdrawals. Israel’s one-car crash is dismally preparing the way for more disasters.

The End of Treason.

News reports from Great Britain indicate that three Islamist leaders in that country – Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Uzair, and Abu Izzadeen – could face treason charges. The first two of them said, post-7/7, that they would not warn the police if they knew of plans to carry out another bomb attack in Britain. The third praised the London bombings for making the British “wake up and smell the coffee.” But are treason charges realistic? Not terribly. For starters, Mohammed has fled and some Islamists are not British citizens. For another, as an official, Lord Carlile pointed out, there is probably not “a lawyer still alive and working who has ever appeared in any part of a treason case.” Indeed, the United Kingdom has seen no application of the Treason Act (originally passed in 1351) since 1966, except for two minor instances. This absence points to a deeper reality: the crime of treason is now as defunct as blue laws, prohibition of alcohol, or laws banning miscegenation. I predict that, short of radical changes, no Western state will again prosecute its citizens for treason. Until recently treason was a powerful concept. The U.S. Constitution defines it as “levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to [its] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Famous traitors in history include Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Quisling, and Lord Haw-Haw. The law of treason was always difficult to apply but now it is impossible, as illustrated by the case of the American Talib, John Walker Lindh. Captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan bearing arms against his co-nationals, treason charges clearly applied to him. But he was charged with lesser offences and pled guilty to even more minor ones (such as “supplying services to the Taliban”). Why this collapse? Because the notion of loyalty has fundamentally changed. Traditionally, a person was assumed faithful to his natal community. A Spaniard or Swede was loyal to his monarch, a Frenchman to his republic, an American to his constitution. That assumption is now obsolete, replaced by a loyalty to one’s political community – socialism, liberalism, conservatism, or Islamism, to name some options. Geographical and social ties matter much less than of old. The Boer War of 1899-1902 marked an initial milestone in this evolution, when an important segment of the British public vocally opposed its government’s war arguments and actions. For the first time, a faction (dubbed “Little Englanders”) openly defied the authorities and called for ending the war effort. Another bellwether came during World War I, when the incompetence of the Allied military leaders led to a massive alienation from government. A third came during the French war in Algeria, when angry intellectuals such as Jean-Paul Sartre effectively called for the murder of their fellow-citizens (“To shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses.”). This alienation reached full florescence during the Vietnam war, when American dissidents waved Vietcong flags and chanted pro-Hanoi slogans (“Ho ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win”).

Israel offers an extreme case of internal subversion. Arabs, one-sixth of the population, owe little allegiance to the Jewish state and sometimes openly call for violence against it or oppose its very existence. Some academics have also called for Arab violence. This climate has even led to several cases of Jews assisting Arab terrorists. At present, loyalty to one’s home society is no longer a given; it must be won. Conversely, hating one’s own society and abetting the enemy is common. Traitor, like bastard, has lost its stigma. This new situation has profound implications. In warfare, for example, each side must compete to attract the loyalty of both its own and the enemy’s population. In World War II, the Allies fought Germany and Japan; now, they focus not on whole countries but on the Taliban or Saddam Hussein, hoping to win Afghan or Iraqi allegiance. This can lead to novel complexities: in the build-up to the Iraq war of 2003, anti-war organizations in the West effectively took Saddam Hussein’s side, while the coalition in turn emphasized its Iraqi supporters. In the war on terror, the battle to win allegiances looms large and is fluid. Treason is defunct in the West. To succeed in war, governments need take this change into account.

 

Jihad through History
By Dr. Daniel Pipes

In his just-released, absorbing, and excellent book, Understanding Jihad (University of California Press), David Cook of Rice University dismisses the low-grade debate that has raged since 9/11 over the nature of jihad – whether it is a form of offensive warfare or (more pleasantly) a type of moral self-improvement. Mr. Cook dismisses as "bathetic and laughable" John Esposito's contention that jihad refers to "the effort to lead a good life." Throughout history and at present, Mr. Cook definitively establishes, the term primarily means "warfare with spiritual significance." His achievement lies in tracing the evolution of jihad from Muhammad to Osama, following how the concept has changed through fourteen centuries. This summary does not do justice to Cook's extensive research, prolific examples, and thoughtful analysis, but even a thumbnail sketch suggests jihad's evolution. The Koran invites Muslims to give their lives in exchange for assurances of paradise. The Hadith (accounts of Muhammad's actions and personal statements) elaborate on the Koran, providing specific injunctions about treaties, pay, booty, prisoners, tactics, and much else.

Muslim jurisprudents then wove these precepts into a body of law. During his years in power, the prophet engaged in an average of nine military campaigns a year, or one every five to six weeks; thus did jihad help define Islam from its very dawn. Conquering and humiliating non-Muslims was a main feature of the prophet's jihad. During the first several centuries of Islam, "the interpretation of jihad was unabashedly aggressive and expansive." After the conquests subsided, non-Muslims hardly threatened and Sufi notions of jihad as self-improvement developed in complement to the martial meaning. The Crusades, the centuries-long European effort to control the Holy Land, gave jihad a new urgency and prompted what Cook calls the "classical" theory of jihad. Finding themselves on the defensive led to a hardening of Muslim attitudes. The Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century subjugated much of the Muslim world, a catastrophe only partially mitigated by the Mongols' nominal conversion to Islam. Some thinkers, Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328) in particular, came to distinguish between true and false Muslims; and to give jihad new prominence by judging the validity of a person's faith according to his willingness to wage jihad. Nineteenth century "purification jihads" took place in several regions against fellow Muslims. The most radical and consequential of these was the Wahhabis' jihad in Arabia. Drawing on Ibn Taymiya, they condemned most non-Wahhabi Muslims as infidels (kafirs) and waged jihad against them. European imperialism inspired jihadi resistance efforts, notably in India, the Caucasus, Somalia, Sudan, Algeria, and Morocco, but all in the end failed. This disaster meant new thinking was needed.

Islamist new thinking began in Egypt and India in the 1920s but jihad acquired its contemporary quality of radical offensive warfare only with the Egyptian thinker Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966). Qutb developed Ibn Taymiya's distinction between true and false Muslims to deem non-Islamists to be non-Muslims and then declare jihad on them. The group that assassinated Anwar El-Sadat in 1981 then added the idea of jihad as the path to world domination. The anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan led to the final step (so far) in this evolution. In Afghanistan, for the first time, jihadis assembled from around the world to fight on behalf of Islam. A Palestinian, Abdullah Azzam, became the theorist of global jihad in the 1980s, giving it an unheard-of central role, judging each Muslim exclusively by his contribution to jihad, and making jihad the salvation of Muslims and Islam. Out of this quickly came suicide terrorism and bin Laden.

Mr. Cook's erudite and timely study has many implications, including these:

• The current understanding of jihad is more extreme than at any prior time in Islamic history.

• This extremism suggests that the Muslim world is going through a phase, one that must be endured and overcome, comparable to analogously horrid periods in Germany, Russia, and China.

• Jihad having evolved steadily until now, doubtless will continue to do so in the future.

• The excessive form of jihad currently practiced by Al-Qaeda and others could, Mr. Cook semi-predicts, lead to its "decisive rejection" by a majority of Muslims. Jihad then could turn into a non-violent concept.

The great challenge for moderate Muslims (and their non-Muslim allies) is to make that rejection come about, and with due haste.

The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem

Comparing Religious Claims

The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is an ancient and powerful one. Judaism made Jerusalem a holy city over three thousand years ago and through all that time Jews remained steadfast to it. Jews pray in its direction, mention its name constantly in prayers, close the Passover service with the wistful statement "Next year in Jerusalem," and recall the city in the blessing at the end of each meal. The destruction of the Temple looms very large in Jewish consciousness; remembrance takes such forms as a special day of mourning, houses left partially unfinished, a woman's makeup or jewelry left incomplete, and a glass smashed during the wedding ceremony. In addition, Jerusalem has had a prominent historical role, is the only capital of a Jewish state, and is the only city with a Jewish majority during the whole of the past century. In the words of its current mayor, Jerusalem represents "the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Second Temple."

What about Muslims? Where does Jerusalem fit in Islam and Muslim history? It is not the place to which they pray, is not once mentioned by name in prayers, and it is connected to no mundane events in Muhammad's life. The city never served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state, and it never became a cultural or scholarly center. Little of political import by Muslims was initiated there.

One comparison makes this point most clearly: Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the Land of Israel) 154 times, or 823 times in all. The Christian Bible mentions Jerusalem 154 times and Zion 7 times. In contrast, the columnist Moshe Kohn notes, Jerusalem and Zion appear as frequently in the Qur'an "as they do in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, the Taoist Tao-Te Ching, the Buddhist Dhamapada and the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta"—which is to say, not once.

The city being of such evidently minor religious importance, why does it now loom so large for Muslims, to the point that a Muslim Zionism seems to be in the making across the Muslim world? Why do Palestinian demonstrators take to the streets shouting "We will sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Jerusalem" and their brethren in Jordan yell "We sacrifice our blood and soul for Al-Aqsa"? Why does King Fahd of Saudi Arabia call on Muslim states to protect "the holy city [that] belongs to all Muslims across the world"? Why did two surveys of American Muslims find Jerusalem their most pressing foreign policy issue?
Because of politics. An historical survey shows that the stature of the city, and the emotions surrounding it, inevitably rises for Muslims when Jerusalem has political significance. Conversely, when the utility of Jerusalem expires, so does its status and the passions about it. This pattern first emerged during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad in the early seventh century. Since then, it has been repeated on five occasions: in the late seventh century, in the twelfth century Countercrusade, in the thirteenth century Crusades, during the era of British rule (1917-48), and since Israel took the city in 1967. The consistency that emerges in such a long period provides an important perspective on the current confrontation.

I. The Prophet Muhammad

According to the Arabic-literary sources, Muhammad in a.d. 622 fled his home town of Mecca for Medina, a city with a substantial Jewish population. On arrival in Medina, if not slightly earlier, the Qur'an adopted a number of practices friendly to Jews: a Yom Kippur-like fast, a synagogue-like place of prayer, permission to eat kosher food, and approval to marry Jewish women. Most important, the Qur'an repudiated the pre-Islamic practice of the Meccans to pray toward the Ka‘ba, the small stone structure at the center of the main mosque in Mecca. Instead, it adopted the Judaic practice of facing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during prayer. (Actually, the Qur'an only mentions the direction as "Syria"; other information makes it clear that Jerusalem is meant.)

This, the first qibla (direction of prayer) of Islam, did not last long. The Jews criticized the new faith and rejected the friendly Islamic gestures; not long after, the Qur'an broke with them, probably in early 624. The explanation of this change comes in a Qur'anic verse instructing the faithful no longer to pray toward Syria but instead toward Mecca. The passage (2:142-52) begins by anticipating questions about this abrupt change:

The Fools among the people will say: "What has turned them [the Muslims] from the qibla to which they were always used?"

God then provides the answer:

We appointed the qibla that to which you was used, only to test those who followed the Messenger [Muhammad] from those who would turn on their heels [on Islam].

In other words, the new qibla served as a way to distinguish Muslims from Jews. From now on, Mecca would be the direction of prayer:

now shall we turn you to a qibla that shall please you. Then turn your face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque [in Mecca]. Wherever you are, turn your faces in that direction.

The Qur'an then reiterates the point about no longer paying attention to Jews:

Even if you were to bring all the signs to the people of the Book [i.e., Jews], they would not follow your qibla.

Muslims subsequently accepted the point implicit to the Qur'anic explanation, that the adoption of Jerusalem as qibla was a tactical move to win Jewish converts. "He chose the Holy House in Jerusalem in order that the People of the Book [i.e., Jews] would be conciliated," notes At-Tabari, an early Muslim commentator on the Qur'an, "and the Jews were glad." Modern historians agree: W. Montgomery Watt, a leading biographer of Muhammad, interprets the prophet's "far-reaching concessions to Jewish feeling" in the light of two motives, one of which was "the desire for a reconciliation with the Jews."

After the Qur'an repudiated Jerusalem, so did the Muslims: the first description of the town under Muslim rule comes from the visiting Bishop Arculf, a Gallic pilgrim, in 680, who reported seeing "an oblong house of prayer, which they [the Muslims] pieced together with upright plans and large beams over some ruined remains." Not for the last time, safely under Muslim control, Jerusalem became a backwater.

This episode set the mold that would be repeated many times over succeeding centuries: Muslims take interest religiously in Jerusalem because of pressing but temporary concerns. Then, when those concerns lapse, so does the focus on Jerusalem, and the city's standing greatly diminishes.

II. Umayyads

The second round of interest in Jerusalem occurred during the rule of the Damascus-based Umayyad dynasty (661-750). A dissident leader in Mecca, ‘Abdullah b. az-Zubayr began a revolt against the Umayyads in 680 that lasted until his death in 692; while fighting him, Umayyad rulers sought to aggrandize Syria at the expense of Arabia (and perhaps also to help recruit an army against the Byzantine Empire). They took some steps to sanctify Damascus, but mostly their campaign involved what Amikam Elad of the Hebrew University calls an "enormous" effort "to exalt and to glorify" Jerusalem. They may even have hoped to make it the equal of Mecca.

The first Umayyad ruler, Mu‘awiya, chose Jerusalem as the place where he ascended to the caliphate; he and his successors engaged in a construction program – religious edifices, a palace, and roads – in the city. The Umayyads possibly had plans to make Jerusalem their political and administrative capital; indeed, Elad finds that they in effect treated it as such. But Jerusalem is primarily a city of faith, and, as the Israeli scholar Izhak Hasson explains, the "Umayyad regime was interested in ascribing an Islamic aura to its stronghold and center." Toward this end (as well as to assert Islam's presence in its competition with Christianity), the Umayyad caliph built Islam's first grand structure, the Dome of the Rock, right on the spot of the Jewish Temple, in 688-91. This remarkable building is not just the first monumental sacred building of Islam but also the only one that still stands today in roughly its original form.

The next Umayyad step was subtle and complex, and requires a pause to note a passage of the Qur'an (17:1) describing the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey to heaven (isra'):

Glory to He who took His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the furthest mosque. (Subhana allathina asra bi-‘abdihi laylatan min al-masjidi al-harami ila al-masjidi al-aqsa.)

When this Qur'anic passage was first revealed, in about 621, a place called the Sacred Mosque already existed in Mecca. In contrast, the "furthest mosque" was a turn of phrase, not a place. Some early Muslims understood it as metaphorical or as a place in heaven. And if the "furthest mosque" did exist on earth, Palestine would seem an unlikely location, for many reasons. Some of them:

Elsewhere in the Qur'an (30:1), Palestine is called "the closest land" (adna al-ard).

Palestine had not yet been conquered by the Muslims and contained not a single mosque.

The "furthest mosque" was apparently identified with places inside Arabia: either Medina or a town called Ji‘rana, about ten miles from Mecca, which the Prophet visited in 630.

The earliest Muslim accounts of Jerusalem, such as the description of Caliph ‘Umar's reported visit to the city just after the Muslims conquest in 638, nowhere identify the Temple Mount with the "furthest mosque" of the Qur'an.

The Qur'anic inscriptions that make up a 240-meter mosaic frieze inside the Dome of the Rock do not include Qur'an 17:1 and the story of the Night Journey, suggesting that as late as 692 the idea of Jerusalem as the lift-off for the Night Journey had not yet been established. (Indeed, the first extant inscriptions of Qur'an 17:1 in Jerusalem date from the eleventh century.)

Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya (638-700), a close relative of the Prophet Muhammad, is quoted denigrating the notion that the prophet ever set foot on the Rock in Jerusalem; "these damned Syrians," by which he means the Umayyads, "pretend that God put His foot on the Rock in Jerusalem, though [only] one person ever put his foot on the rock, namely Abraham."

Then, in 715, to build up the prestige of their dominions, the Umayyads did a most clever thing: they built a second mosque in Jerusalem, again on the Temple Mount, and called this one the Furthest Mosque (al-masjid al-aqsa, Al-Aqsa Mosque). With this, the Umayyads retroactively gave the city a role in Muhammad's life. This association of Jerusalem with al-masjid al-aqsa fit into a wider Muslim tendency to identify place names found in the Qur'an: "wherever the Koran mentions a name of an event, stories were invented to give the impression that somehow, somewhere, someone, knew what they were about."

Despite all logic (how can a mosque built nearly a century after the Qur'an was received establish what the Qur'an meant?), building an actual Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Palestinian historian A. L. Tibawi writes, "gave reality to the figurative name used in the Koran." It also had the hugely important effect of inserting Jerusalem post hoc into the Qur'an and making it more central to Islam. Also, other changes resulted. Several Qur'anic passages were re-interpreted to refer to this city. Jerusalem came to be seen as the site of the Last Judgment. The Umayyads cast aside the non-religious Roman name for the city, Aelia Capitolina (in Arabic, Iliya) and replaced it with Jewish-style names, either Al-Quds (The Holy) or Bayt al-Maqdis (The Temple). They sponsored a form of literature praising the "virtues of Jerusalem," a genre one author is tempted to call "Zionist." Accounts of the prophet's sayings or doings (Arabic: hadiths, often translated into English as "Traditions") favorable to Jerusalem emerged at this time, some of them equating the city with Mecca. There was even an effort to move the pilgrimage (hajj) from Mecca to Jerusalem.

Scholars agree that the Umayyads' motivation to assert a Muslim presence in the sacred city had a strictly utilitarian purpose. The Iraqi historian Abdul Aziz Duri finds "political reasons" behind their actions. Hasson concurs:

The construction of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosque, the rituals instituted by the Umayyads on the Temple Mount and the dissemination of Islamic-oriented Traditions regarding the sanctity of the site, all point to the political motives which underlay the glorification of Jerusalem among the Muslims.

Thus did a politically-inspired Umayyad building program lead to the Islamic sanctification of Jerusalem.

Abbasid Rule

Then, with the Umayyad demise in 750 and the move of the caliph's capital to Baghdad, "imperial patronage became negligible" and Jerusalem fell into near-obscurity. For the next three and a half centuries, books praising this city lost favor and the construction of glorious buildings not only came to an end but existing ones fell apart (the dome over the rock collapsed in 1016). Gold was stripped off the dome to pay for Al-Aqsa repair work. City walls collapsed. Worse, the rulers of the new dynasty bled Jerusalem and its region country through what F. E. Peters of New York University calls "their rapacity and their careless indifference." The city declined to the point of becoming a shambles. "Learned men are few, and the Christians numerous," bemoaned a tenth-century Muslim native of Jerusalem. Only mystics continued to visit the city.

In a typical put-down, another tenth-century author described the city as "a provincial town attached to Ramla," a reference to the tiny, insignificant town serving as Palestine's administrative center. Elad characterizes Jerusalem in the early centuries of Muslim rule as "an outlying city of diminished importance." The great historian S. D. Goitein notes that the geographical dictionary of al-Yaqut mentions Basra 170 times, Damascus 100 times, and Jerusalem only once, and that one time in passing. He concludes from this and other evidence that, in its first six centuries of Muslim rule, "Jerusalem mostly lived the life of an out-of-the-way provincial town, delivered to the exactions of rapacious officials and notables, often also to tribulations at the hands of seditious fellahin [peasants] or nomads. . . . Jerusalem certainly could not boast of excellence in the sciences of Islam or any other fields."

By the early tenth century, notes Peters, Muslim rule over Jerusalem had an "almost casual" quality with "no particular political significance." Later too: Al-Ghazali, sometimes called the "Thomas Aquinas of Islam," visited Jerusalem in 1096 but not once refers to the Crusaders heading his way.

III. Early Crusades

The Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 initially aroused a very mild Muslim response. The Franks did not rate much attention; Arabic literature written in Crusader-occupied towns tended not even to mention them . Thus, "calls to jihad at first fell upon deaf ears," writes Robert Irwin, formerly of the University of St Andrews in Scotland. Emmanuel Sivan of the Hebrew University adds that "one does not detect either shock or a sense of religious loss and humiliation."

Only as the effort to retake Jerusalem grew serious in about 1150 did Muslim leaders seek to rouse jihad sentiments through the heightening of emotions about Jerusalem. Using the means at their disposal (hadiths, "virtues of Jerusalem" books, poetry), their propagandists stressed the sanctity of Jerusalem and the urgency of its return to Muslim rule. Newly-minted hadiths made Jerusalem ever-more critical to the Islamic faith; one of them put words into the Prophet Muhammad's mouth saying that, after his own death, Jerusalem's falling to the infidels is the second greatest catastrophe facing Islam. Whereas not a single "virtues of Jerusalem" volume appeared in the period 1100-50, very many came out in the subsequent half century. In the 1160s, Sivan notes, "al-Quds propaganda blossomed"; and when Saladin (Salah ad-Din) led the Muslims to victory over Jerusalem in 1187, the "propaganda campaign . . . attained its paroxysm." In a letter to his Crusader opponent, Saladin wrote that the city "is to us as it is to you. It is even more important to us."

The glow of the reconquest remained bright for several decades thereafter; for example, Saladin's descendants (known as the Ayyubid dynasty, which ruled until 1250) went on a great building and restoration program in Jerusalem, thereby imbuing the city with a more Muslim character. Until this point, Islamic Jerusalem had consisted only of the shrines on the Temple Mount; now, for the first time, specifically Islamic buildings (Sufi convents, schools) were built in the surrounding city. Also, it was at this time, Oleg Grabar of Princeton's Institute of Advanced Study notes, that the Dome of the Rock came to be seen as the exact place where Muhammad's ascension to heaven (mi‘raj) took place during his Night Journey: if the "furthest mosque" is in Jerusalem, then Muhammad's Night Journey and his subsequent visit to heaven logically took place on the Temple Mount—indeed, on the very rock from which Jesus was thought to have ascended to heaven.

IV. Ayyubids

But once safely back in Muslim hands, interest in Jerusalem again dropped; "the simple fact soon emerged that al-Quds was not essential to the security of an empire based in Egypt or Syria. Accordingly, in times of political or military crisis, the city proved to be expendable," writes Donald P. Little of McGill University. In particular, in 1219, when the Europeans attacked Egypt in the Fifth Crusade, a grandson of Saladin named al-Mu‘azzam decided to raze the walls around Jerusalem, fearing that were the Franks to take the city with walls, "they will kill all whom they find there and will have the fate of Damascus and lands of Islam in their hands." Pulling down Jerusalem's fortifications had the effect of prompting a mass exodus from the city and its steep decline.

Also at this time, the Muslim ruler of Egypt and Palestine, al-Kamil (another of Saladin's grandsons and the brother of al-Mu‘azzam), offered to trade Jerusalem to the Europeans if only the latter would leave Egypt, but he had no takers. Ten years later, in 1229, just such a deal was reached when al-Kamil did cede Jerusalem to Emperor Friedrich II; in return, the German leader promised military aid to al-Kamil against al-Mu‘azzam, now a rival king. Al-Kamil insisted that the Temple Mount remain in Muslim hands and "all the practices of Islam" continued to be exercised there, a condition Friedrich complied with. Referring to his deal with Frederick, al-Kamil wrote in a remarkably revealing description of Jerusalem, "I conceded to the Franks only ruined churches and houses." In other words, the city that had been heroically regained by Saladin in 1187 was voluntarily traded away by his grandson just forty-two years later.

On learning that Jerusalem was back in Christian hands, Muslims felt predictably intense emotions. An Egyptian historian later wrote that the loss of the city "was a great misfortune for the Muslims, and much reproach was put upon al-Kamil, and many were the revilings of him in all the lands." By 1239, another Ayyubid ruler, an-Nasir Da'ud, managed to expel the Franks from the city.

But then he too ceded it right back to the Crusaders in return for help against one of his relatives. This time, the Christians were less respectful of the Islamic sanctuaries and turned the Temple Mount mosques into churches.

Their intrusion did not last long; by 1244 the invasion of Palestine by troops from Central Asia brought Jerusalem again under the rule of an Ayyubid; and henceforth the city remained safely under Muslim rule for nearly seven centuries. Jerusalem remained but a pawn in the Realpolitik of the times, as explained in a letter from a later Ayyubid ruler, as-Salih Ayyub, to his son: if the Crusaders threaten you in Cairo, he wrote, and they demand from you the coast of Palestine and Jerusalem, "give these places to them without delay on condition they have no foothold in Egypt."

The psychology at work here bears note: that Christian knights traveled from distant lands to make Jerusalem their capital made the city more valuable in Muslim eyes too. "It was a city strongly coveted by the enemies of the faith, and thus became, in a sort of mirror-image syndrome, dear to Muslim hearts," Sivan explains. And so fractured opinions coalesced into a powerful sensibility; political exigency caused Muslims ever after to see Jerusalem as the third most holy city of Islam (thalith al-masajid).

Mamluk and Ottoman Rule

During the Mamluk era (1250-1516), Jerusalem lapsed further into its usual obscurity – capital of no dynasty, economic laggard, cultural backwater—though its new-found prestige as an Islamic site remained intact. Also, Jerusalem became a favorite place to exile political leaders, due to its proximity to Egypt and its lack of walls, razed in 1219 and not rebuilt for over three centuries, making Jerusalem easy prey for marauders. These notables endowed religious institutions, especially religious schools, which in the aggregate had the effect of re-establishing Islam in the city. But a general lack of interest translated into decline and impoverishment. Many of the grand buildings, including the Temple Mount sanctuaries, were abandoned and became dilapidated as the city became depopulated. A fourteenth-century author bemoaned the paucity of Muslims visiting Jerusalem. The Mamluks so devastated Jerusalem that the town's entire population at the end of their rule amounted to a miserable 4,000 souls.

The Ottoman period (1516-1917) got off to an excellent start when S?leyman the Magnificent rebuilt the city walls in 1537-41 and lavished money in Jerusalem (for example, assuring its water supply), but things then quickly reverted to type. Jerusalem now suffered from the indignity of being treated as a tax farm for non-resident, one-year (and very rapacious) officials. "After having exhausted Jerusalem, the pasha left," observed the French traveler Fran?ois-Ren? Chateaubriand in 1806. At times, this rapaciousness prompted uprisings. The Turkish authorities also raised funds for themselves by gouging European visitors; in general, this allowed them to make fewer efforts in Jerusalem than in other cities to promote the city's economy. The tax rolls show soap as its only export. So insignificant was Jerusalem, it was sometimes a mere appendage to the governorship of Nablus or Gaza. Nor was scholarship cultivated: in 1670, a traveler reported that standards had dropped so low that even the preacher at Al-Aqsa Mosque spoke a low standard of literary Arabic. The many religious schools of an earlier era disappeared. By 1806, the population had again dropped, this time to under 9,000 residents.

Muslims during this long era could afford to ignore Jerusalem, writes the historian James Parkes, because the city "was something that was there, and it never occurred to a Muslim that it would not always be there," safely under Muslim rule. Innumerable reports during these centuries from Western pilgrims, tourists, and diplomats in Jerusalem told of the city's execrable condition. George Sandys in 1611 found that "Much lies waste; the old buildings (except a few) all ruined, the new contemptible." Constantin Volney, one of the most scientific of observers, noted in 1784 Jerusalem's "destroyed walls, its debris-filled moat, its city circuit choked with ruins." "What desolation and misery!" wrote Chateaubriand. Gustav Flaubert of Madame Bovary fame visited in 1850 and found "Ruins everywhere, and everywhere the odor of graves. It seems as if the Lord's curse hovers over the city. The Holy City of three religions is rotting away from boredom, desertion, and neglect." "Hapless are the favorites of heaven," commented Herman Melville in 1857. Mark Twain in 1867 found that Jerusalem "has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become a pauper village."

The British government recognized the minimal Muslim interest in Jerusalem during World War I. In negotiations with Sharif Husayn of Mecca in 1915-16 over the terms of the Arab revolt against the Ottomans, London decided not to include Jerusalem in territories to be assigned to the Arabs because, as the chief British negotiator, Henry McMahon, put it, "there was no place … of sufficient importance … further south" of Damascus "to which the Arabs attached vital importance."

True to this spirit, the Turkish overlords of Jerusalem abandoned Jerusalem rather than fight for it in 1917, evacuating it just in advance of the British troops. One account indicates they were even prepared to destroy the holy city. Jamal Pasha, the Ottoman commander-in-chief, instructed his Austrian allies to "blow Jerusalem to hell" should the British enter the city. The Austrians therefore had their guns trained on the Dome of the Rock, with enough ammunition to keep up two full days of intensive bombardment. According to Pierre van Paasen, a journalist, that the dome still exists today is due to a Jewish artillery captain in the Austrian army, Marek Schwartz, who rather than respond to the approaching British troops with a barrage on the Islamic holy places, "quietly spiked his own guns and walked into the British lines."

V. British Rule

In modern times, notes the Israeli scholar Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Jerusalem "became the focus of religious and political Arab activity only at the beginning of the [twentieth] century." She ascribes the change mainly to "the renewed Jewish activity in the city and Judaism's claims on the Western Wailing Wall." British rule over city, lasting from 1917 to 1948, then galvanized a renewed passion for Jerusalem. Arab politicians made Jerusalem a prominent destination during the British Mandatory period. Iraqi leaders frequently turned up in Jerusalem, demonstrably praying at Al-Aqsa and giving emotional speeches. Most famously, King Faysal of Iraq visited the city and made a ceremonial entrance to the Temple Mount using the same gate as did Caliph ‘Umar when the city was first conquered in 638. Iraqi involvement also included raising funds for an Islamic university in Jerusalem, and setting up a consulate and an information office there.

The Palestinian leader (and mufti of Jerusalem) Hajj Amin al-Husayni made the Temple Mount central to his anti-Zionist political efforts. Husayni brought a contingent of Muslim notables to Jerusalem in 1931 for an international congress to mobilize global Muslim opinion on behalf of the Palestinians. He also exploited the draw of the Islamic holy places in Jerusalem to find international Muslim support for his campaign against Zionism. For example, he engaged in fundraising in several Arab countries to restore the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa, sometimes by sending out pictures of the Dome of the Rock under a Star of David; his efforts did succeed in procuring the funds to restore these monuments to their former glory.

Perhaps most indicative of the change in mood was the claim that the Prophet Muhammad had tethered his horse to the western wall of the Temple Mount. As established by Shmuel Berkowitz, Muslim scholars over the centuries had variously theorized about the prophet tying horse to the eastern or southern walls—but not one of them before the Muslim-Jewish clashes at the Western Wall in 1929 ever associated this incident with the western side. Once again, politics drove Muslim piousness regarding Jerusalem.

Jordanian Rule

Sandwiched between British and Israeli eras, Jordanian rule over Jerusalem in 1948-67 offers a useful control case; true to form, when Muslims took the Old City (which contains the sanctuaries) they noticeably lost interest in it. An initial excitement stirred when the Jordanian forces captured the walled city in 1948 -- as evidenced by the Coptic bishop's crowning King ‘Abdullah as "King of Jerusalem" in November of that year—but then the usual ennui set in. The Hashemites had little affection for Jerusalem, where some of their worst enemies lived and where ‘Abdullah was assassinated in 1951. In fact, the Hashemites made a concerted effort to diminish the holy city's importance in favor of their capital, Amman. Jerusalem had served as the British administrative capital, but now all government offices there (save tourism) were shut down; Jerusalem no longer had authority even over other parts of the West Bank. The Jordanians also closed some local institutions (e.g., the Arab Higher Committee, the Supreme Muslim Council) and moved others to Amman (the treasury of the waqf, or religious endowment).

Jordanian efforts succeeded: once again, Arab Jerusalem became an isolated provincial town, less important than Nablus. The economy so stagnated that many thousands of Arab Jerusalemites left the town: while the population of Amman increased five-fold in the period 1948-67, that of Jerusalem grew by just 50 percent. To take out a bank loan meant traveling to Amman. Amman had the privilege of hosting the country's first university and the royal family's many residences. Jerusalem Arabs knew full well what was going on, as evidenced by one notable's complaint about the royal residences: "those palaces should have been built in Jerusalem, but were removed from here, so that Jerusalem would remain not a city, but a kind of village." East Jerusalem's Municipal Counsel twice formally complained of the Jordanian authorities' discrimination against their city.

Perhaps most insulting of all was the decline in Jerusalem's religious standing. Mosques lacked sufficient funds. Jordanian radio broadcast the Friday prayers not from Al-Aqsa Mosque but from an upstart mosque in Amman. (Ironically, Radio Israel began broadcasting services from Al-Aqsa immediately after the Israel victory in 1967.) This was part of a larger pattern, as the Jordanian authorities sought to benefit from the prestige of controlling Jerusalem even as they put the city down: Marshall Breger and Thomas Idinopulos note that although King ‘Abdullah "styled himself a protector of the holy sites, he did little to promote the religious importance of Jerusalem to Muslims."

Nor were Jordan's rulers alone in ignoring Jerusalem; the city virtually disappeared from the Arab diplomatic map. Malcolm Kerr's well-known study on inter-Arab relations during this period (The Arab Cold War) appears not once to mention the city. No foreign Arab leader came to Jerusalem during the nineteen years when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem, and King Husayn (r. 1952-99) himself only rarely visited. King Faysal of Saudi Arabia spoke often after 1967 of his yearning to pray in Jerusalem, yet he appears never to have bothered to pray there when he had the chance. Perhaps most remarkable is that the PLO's founding document, the Palestinian National Covenant of 1964, does not once mention Jerusalem or even allude to it.

VI. Israeli Rule

This neglect came to an abrupt end after June 1967, when the Old City came under Israeli control. Palestinians again made Jerusalem the centerpiece of their political program. The Dome of the Rock turned up in pictures everywhere, from Yasir Arafat's office to the corner grocery. Slogans about Jerusalem proliferated and the city quickly became the single most emotional issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The PLO made up for its 1964 oversight by specifically mentioning Jerusalem in its 1968 constitution as "the seat of the Palestine Liberation Organization."

"As during the era of the Crusaders," Lazarus-Yafeh points out, Muslim leaders "began again to emphasize the sanctity of Jerusalem in Islamic tradition." In the process, they even relied on some of the same arguments (e.g., rejecting the occupying power's religious connections to the city) and some of the same hadiths to back up those allegations. Muslims began echoing the Jewish devotion to Jerusalem: Arafat declared that "Al-Quds is in the innermost of our feeling, the feeling of our people and the feeling of all Arabs, Muslims, and Christians in the world." Extravagant statements became the norm (Jerusalem was now said to be "comparable in holiness" to Mecca and Medina; or even "our most sacred place"). Jerusalem turned up regularly in Arab League and United Nations resolutions. The Jordanian and Saudi governments now gave as munificently to the Jerusalem religious trust as they had been stingy before 1967.

Nor were Palestinians alone in this emphasis on Jerusalem: the city again served as a powerful vehicle for mobilizing Muslim opinion internationally. This became especially clear in September 1969, when King Faysal parlayed a fire at Al-Aqsa Mosque into the impetus to convene twenty-five Muslim heads of state and establish the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a United Nations-style institution for Muslims. In Lebanon, the fundamentalist group Hizbullah depicts the Dome of the Rock on everything from wall posters to scarves and under the picture often repeats its slogan: "We are advancing." Lebanon's leading Shi‘i authority, Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, regularly exploits the theme of liberating Jerusalem from Israeli control to inspire his own people; he does so, explains his biographer Martin Kramer, not for pie-in-the-sky reasons but "to mobilize a movement to liberate Lebanon for Islam."

Similarly, the Islamic Republic of Iran has made Jerusalem a central issue, following the dictate of its founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, who remarked that "Jerusalem is the property of Muslims and must return to them." Since shortly after the regime's founding, its 1-rial coin and 1000-rial banknote have featured the Dome of the Rock (though, embarrassingly, the latter initially was mislabeled "Al-Aqsa Mosque"). Iranian soldiers at war with Saddam Husayn's forces in the 1980s received simple maps showing their sweep through Iraq and onto Jerusalem. Ayatollah Khomeini decreed the last Friday of Ramadan as Jerusalem Day, and this commemoration has served as a major occasion for anti-Israel harangues in many countries, including Turkey, Tunisia, and Morocco. The Islamic Republic of Iran celebrates the holiday with stamps and posters featuring scenes of Jerusalem accompanied by exhortative slogans. In February 1997, a crowd of some 300,000 celebrated Jerusalem Day in the presence of dignitaries such as President Hashemi Rafsanjani. Jerusalem Day is celebrated (complete with a roster of speeches, an art exhibit, a folkloric show, and a youth program) as far off as Dearborn, Michigan.

CONTINUES ON  TERRORISM P2