Flight to 911- Part 1

[Steve Gardner]

This fascinating ten-part series was posted at another forum - Above Top Secret (link to Part 1 only). The original source, which is recognised in the ATS thread, is no longer available.

I have reproduced it here in 11 parts - Part 1 had to be split in two since it is 27,000+ characters long and, therefore, in excess of the maximum single post length.

Balfour and the Mandatory Years

Written April, 2004

The United States, as a sovereign nation, has on its own contributed to the degeneration of relationships between itself and the mid- eastern countries from which the hatred of 9/11 issued. In addition, fanatical theological teachings that breed intolerance and unfounded animosity in the Persian Gulf region have contributed in their own separatist fashion. But an analysis of the animosity that exists now, and that existed on September 11, 2001, cannot be complete without reviewing certain important global community decisions that played major roles in the culminating events on that September day. Within these the issue of Palestine is by far the most significant.


The polarization of the world that has taken place over the Israeli- Palestinian conflict that has raged since shortly after the declaring of the existence of the Nation of Israel in 1948 can be assigned to some of the briefest communications penned in world history.

The Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was a terse and succinct letter written by the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to the then Jewish leader Lord Rothschild.

"Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild:

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's
Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,
Arthur James Balfour"

The intent of the letter was to gain Jewish support (i.e. financing) and influence for the Allied cause in World War I (particularly in the very strategic alliances with America and Russia), and was meant as a propagandist gesture, according to Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain at the time. In fact, George as much as admits that it was a bit like a marriage proposal prior to being shipped off to war - there was uncertainty in whether the consummation would take place. In other words, the outcome of World War I was unclear at the time of the declaration.

Lest the Balfour Declaration be viewed as some unique and discriminatory action accorded only the Jews, Lord George points out that many declarations, all of propagandist intent, were issued to many peoples who were, at the time, dispersed by or subjugated to an alien authority. In particular the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf region who were overran by the Turks. To a declaration, all of these promises were fulfilled by Britain. Lord George's words on this issue are:

"No race has done better out of the fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs. Owing to the tremendous sacrifices of the Allied nations, and more particularly of Britain and her Empire, the Arabs have already won independence in Iraq, Arabia, Syria, and Trans-Jordania, although most of the Arab races fought throughout the War for their Turkish oppressors. Arabia was the only exception in that respect. The Palestinian Arabs fought for Turkish rule."

It must be pointed out that at the time of the war (i.e. Turkish occupation), and at the time of the Balfour Declaration, there was "no such place or country as 'Palestine'..." The region was divided up " between the sanjak of Jerusalem and the vilayets of Syria and Beirut." And the future was not any brighter for a legitimate "Palestine" once the area was liberated by the Allies. The region had been docketed for "international control" in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 between France and Britain. "The country was to be mutilated and torn into sections. There would be no Palestine."

This "what to do with Palestine" problem can be seen as far back as 1915 in a letter from Sir Henry McMahon to Sharif Hussein in which McMahon promises Sharif Hussein of Mecca control of all the areas liberated from Turkey, and within the authority of the U.K., with the exception of areas under the authority of the French, and that "cannot be said to be purely Arab" and these areas included Palestine (as discussed later). McMahon was courting the support of the Arabs in the fight against Turkey with propagandist promises, as the King was courting the Jews to ensure their support in America and Russia.

That Palestine was not "purely Arab" must be pointed out in that there were Arab-Palestinians, Christian-Palestinians and Jewish-Palestinians in the region already. In 1921 an Interim Report on the Administration of Palestine was issued by the League of Nations that broke down the demographics of the region. It stated that prior to 1850, there had only been "a handful" of Jews in the Palestinian region. But beginnning in 1850, and over the next 50 years there had been an ever-increasing immigration of Jews into the region culminating in approximtely 10% of the population of the area being Jewish (total population stated at about 700,000, with approximately 84,000 Jews).

With the understanding that under the Sykes-Picot Agreement the area of "Palestine" would have remained a non-entity, we are faced with the irony that the very declaration that would set the region in an un-ending conflict between Arab and Jew is also the document in which a formal and legitimate "Palestine" was given a resurrection. Had the Balfour declaration and the shift in attitude behind it not taken place there would have remained no "Palestine" after World War I.

And lest it be believed that a Jewish homeland in Palestine was produced due to the British promise and the eventual victory of the Allies, it can be shown that some form of Zionist legislation would have occurred regarding the "non-area" of Palestine had the Central Powers been victorious:

"There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavour to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V .J.O.D.,* was formed, and in January, 1918, Talaat, the Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which 'all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to find their fulfilment.'"

Concerning the reaction of the Palestinian-Arabs to the Balfour Declaration, Lord Curzon stated that "The Arab leaders did not offer any objections to the declaration, so long as the rights of the Arabs in Palestine were respected."

[Steve Gardner]

The Mandatory Years

Inherent to the birth of the League of Nations was the responsibility to assign Mandatories "to those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them..." as laid out in Article 22 of the "Covenant of the League of Nations". The amorphous region of Palestine lay within this Article.

In 1922, the League of Nations fulfilled this responsibility by issuing statements of mandate for the various regions that qualified under Article 22. The Palestine Mandate was issued on July 24, 1922, and in addition to assigning Britain as the Mandatory of the region, it recognized the Balfour Declaration, the historical connection of the Jewish people to Palestine, and stated the commitment to the creation of a Jewish homeland in the area of Palestine. Of importance to the Palestine Mandate is the detachment of the Transjordan region from "Palestine" as a separate region:

"ARTICLE 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."

There was an immediate contest by the Arab leaders. Primarily because there were promises made to both the Zionist Federation and Sharif Hussein which were, at least by perception and interpretation of the Arabs, in direct conflict. That Palestine was not handed over to be an "independent Arab state" was defended by the British as being covered both in the exemption of areas held under French authority (the Sykes-Picot Agreement being in place during the time of the promises of the McMahon letters) and in certain other phrases penned by McMahon describing excluded lands in the Syrian region. The problem here was that the Balfour Declaration itself contradicted these assertions, especially the exemption by way of recognizing French authority. Had French authority actually been recognized by Britain, they could not have declared a commitment to the Zionist Federation to create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine owing to their lack of authority in the region.

Lord Grey, who was actually over the efforts of agreement with Sharif Hussein in 1915, spoke against the contradictions of the varying promises made to both sides concerning Palestine, and was adamant that if these contradictions were not admitted, and a statement that all could not possibly be fulfilled, the integrity of the throne of Britain would be at stake.

Apparently, the British government did not take Lord Grey's words to heart, but, in fact, dismissed them during the Conferences on Palestine in 1939 with the Arab Delegates stating they were inapplicable to the argument as Lord Grey had not had the Balfour Declaration in front of him at the time of his speech. Whether it can be deemed disengenuous or not, the British conclusion at the Conferences on Palestine was that Palestine had not been included in the areas to be made independent Arab states during the correspondences with McMahon and Hussein. This decision relied heavily on the recognition of French authority at the time of the letters, and disregarded the apparent contradiction of that recognition with the Balfour Declaration.

The mandatory years, beginning in 1922 and ending with the pull-out of British military presence in the region in 1948, would be a long record of Arab dissatisfaction at the intent to create a Jewish homeland in the region, and increasing animosity between the two sides. These animosities were recognized and addressed by Churchill in his white paper of 1922 in which he state:

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims 'the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development.'...

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian..."

These statements make clear that Churchill's understanding of the Balfour Declaration was that the Jews would be allowed to create their homeland as part and parcel of Palestine, not as a unique "Nation of Israel" sovereign from the rest of the Palestinian state.

There were brief episodes of violence by the Arabs in the years of 1920-22, but for the most part, the region was going through rather docile growing pains under the shadow of the future changes.

In August 1929, the Wailing Wall Dispute came to a head in the form of riots that first broke out in Jerusalem and then spread to Hebron. The Arabs under the leadership of Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, had been making Jewish access to the Wailing Wall as difficult as possible. The Mufti had whipped up anti-Jewish sentiment by promoting an accusation that the Jews were attempting to take over Holy Sites in Jerusalem. The riots were the first large-scale attacks against Jews, and resulted in 133 Jews being killed, but the majority of these deaths are attributed to British authorities.

The Shaw Commission was established to investigate the causes of the 1929 riots. The commission reported that the underlying cause was an Arab concern for the increased Jewish expansion which would result in Arabs losing land. There was also animosity at the practice of Jewish employers hiring only Jews. The overall fear was that the Jewish expansion would leave the Arab-Palestinians as a subordinate class. It was recommended that steps be taken to address these concerns.

The result was two documents: The Hope-Simpson Report and the Passfield White Paper. The Passfield paper reiterated the statements of Churchhill in that it stated that the development of Jewish National homeland in Palestine was not considered central to the League of Nations mandate. Both papers recommended a cessation of Jewish immigration. However, this recommendation should not be taken as a statement that the investigation showed Palestine to be "overran" with Jewish immigrants. Since 1921 the total population had grown from approximately 750,000 to around 945,000 and the percent of that as Jewish had grown from 11% to 17%.

The Passfield white paper also recommended a council be set up to ensure Arab autonomy within the Palestinian region. However, the Arabs failed to take advantage of this opportunity. When the first council meeting took place a Jewish representation was present, but the Arab's refused to attend. The council was done away with.

Through a combination of Zionist pressure, British aggravation at the Arab's uncooperative nature in its efforts to bring about reconciliation between the two groups, and the emergence of Hitler to power in Germany, the Passfield recommendations were by and large abandoned and Jewish immigration was allowed to continue at a some what regulated rate.

Becoming ever more militant, in 1936, the Arabs created the "Arab High Committee", again led by the Mufti of Jerusalem, which called a series of strikes which usually degenerated into violence and guerilla warfare against the Jewish population. These conflicts would rage through 1936. The result of the continued conflicts was the creation of the Peel Commission in 1937.

The Peel Commission concluded that the underlying causes of the disturbances were the same as had been behind the disturbances of prior years:

"(1) The desire of the Arabs for national independence;

(2) their hatred and fear of the establishment of the Jewish National Home."

It concluded that:

"The gulf between the races is thus already wide and will continue to widen if the present Mandate is maintained...

...The sincere attempts of the Government to treat the two races impartially have not improved the relations between them. Nor has the policy of conciliating Arab opposition been successful. The events of last year proved that conciliation is useless.

The evidence submitted by the Arab and Jewish leaders respectively was directly conflicting and gave no hope of compromise."

"Such hopes as may have been entertained in 1922 of any quick advance towards self-government have become less tenable. The bar to it--Arab antagonism to the National Home--so far from weakening, has grown stronger.

The Jewish leaders might acquiesce in the establishment of a Legislative Council on the basis of parity, but the Commission are convinced that parity is not a practicable solution of the problem. It is difficult to believe that so artificial a device would operate effectively or last long, and in any case the Arab leaders would not accept it."

"The Commission do not recommend that any attempt be made to revive the proposal of a Legislative Council, but since it is desirable that the Government should have some regular and effective means of sounding public opinion on its policy, the Commission would welcome an enlargement of the Advisory Council by the addition of Unofficial Members, who might be in a majority and might be elected, who could make representations by way of resolution, but who would not be empowered to pass or reject the budget or other legislative measures. Again, the Arabs are unlikely to accept such a proposal."

The Conclusions and Recommendations of the Peel Commission were succinct:

"The Commission recapitulate the conclusions set out in this part of the Report, and summarize the Arab and Jewish grievances and their own recommendations for the removal of such as are legitimate. They add, however, that these are not the recommendations which their terms of reference require. They will not, that is to say, remove the grievances nor prevent their recurrence. They are the best palliatives the Commission can devise for the disease from which Palestine is suffering, but they are only palliatives. They cannot cure the trouble. The disease is so deep-rooted that in the Commissioners' firm conviction the only hope of a cure lies in a surgical operation."

The only resolution in the eyes of the Peel Commission would be partitioning the land.

The Arab response to the Peel report was more violence. In the face of the new conflicts, the British disbanded the Arab High Commission and deported its leading members. It set up a second commission, the Woodhead Commission, to review the recommendations of the Peel commission.

The Woodhead Commission concluded that the Peel report was too generous in its land allotments to the Jews (Peel Report Map). The Woodhead Commission produced two alternative partitioning plans. Plan B "reduced the size of the Jewish State by the addition of Galilee to the permanently mandated area and of the southern part of the region south of Jaffa to the Arab State." Plan C "limited the Jewish State to the coastal region between Zikhron Yaaqov and Rehovoth while northern Palestine, including the Plains of Esdraelon and Jezreel, and all the semi-arid region of southern Palestine would have been placed under separate mandate."

The British government rejected all partitioning plans as impracticable. And instead, issued one final plea of cooperation toward a single Palestinian state in which an agreement between the two parties could result in shared authority for both Jewish and Arab citizens. An invitation was extended to both sides to come together for talks with the British government in working out future Palestinian policies.

The Arab delegates refused to meet with the Jewish delegates. The British government was forced to meet with each side separately, and no agreement could be reached between the two sides. As a result, the British issued the White Paper of 1939 in which it declared it would work over the next 10 years to establish a united Palestinian state in which authority was shared by both Jewish and Arab representation. Further, it called for a cessation of Jewish immigration due to the Arab opposition of same. It pledged to allow an additional 75,000 Jewish immigrants in over the next 5 years.

The Jews, both in Palestine and around the world vehemently rejected the British White paper on the grounds that it violated the Mandate, and would result in the Jews being in a "permanent minority status in a hostile Arab state." This time, Jewish violence broke out across Palestine. The Arabs rejected it as well, but eventually the Arab Nashashibi faction agreed to cooperate and brought about the general acceptance of the terms of the British White Paper by the Arab population.

The White Paper was never fully implemented, especially in regards to the constitutional provisions. However, the land transfer policies and the Jewish immigration restrictions were put in place.

The White Paper was placed before the Permanent Mandate Commission, which unanimously ruled that it was in conflict with the mandate. The British government began actions to bring the White Paper before the League of Nations for a ruling on this matter in September 1939. However, the outbreak of World War II resulted in the League of Nations suspending its operations, and the Palestinian issue remained unaddressed.

As the war raged on in Europe, illegal immigration of Jews into Palestine occurred and the Palestine Government worked to keep these immigrants out. However, the problem of illegal Jewish immigrants should not be exaggerated, as by the autumn of 1943, only 44,000 of the 75,000 immigrants allowed in the White Paper had come into Palestine.

Over the course of the war, and as the White Paper policies were further implemented, Jewish resistance increased. Jewish militant groups formed with varying degrees of activities. Haganah, which had been originally started as a response to Arab terrorism, had grown to over 60,000. By and large, this organization was restrained and did not engage in terrorist activities, but was implicated in Jewish violence that occurred near the end of 1945 against the Government's attempt to prevent illegal immigration.

The Irgun Zvai Leumi, military organization for the Revisionists, were more radical and had, since 1943, "engaged in an intermittent series of robberies and extortions to produce funds and of bombing attacks upon Government buildings, transport and police installations".

The Stern Group was the most extreme of the Jewish militant groups going so far as to attempt to assassinate the High Commissioner, and successfully murdering the Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944.

On the Arab side, a new Arab Higher Committee was formed in 1945 which was "united behind a program demanding the fullfillment of the White Paper policy and the speedy granting of independence to an Arab-dominated Palestine."

As World War II drew to a close, the Jews brought the perceived imbalances of the 1939 White Paper back before the British Government. At this point, not only did they have the loyal military service of Jews in the Allied efforts against the Germans on their side, but the sympathy of the world as the atrocities of the Holocaust were revealed. The British response was to form yet another committee, this time in partnership with America. The result was the Anglo-American Committee.

In April, 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry also stated that in addition to the militant developments within the Jewish population of Palestine:

The "Arabs as well as Jews possess arms, and signs have not been entirely lacking of a revival of Arab secret activities, similar to those which preceded the disturbances of 1936-39.

In the face of actual violence and threats of much more serious violence, possibly approaching the status of civil war, the Palestine Government resorted to drastic emergency legislation which permitted it to modify or suspend normal civil liberties. There can be no gainsaying that Palestine today is governed without the consent of Jews or Arabs by an Administration depending almost solely upon force for the maintenance of a precarious authority."

The Anglo-American report was highly favorable toward the Jews and called for the end to restrictions on land purchases, and the admission of 100,000 European Jews. But most importantly, the creation of a bi-national state under the auspices of the newly formed United Nations. Britain jumped at the chance to offload the problem on the U.N. and invited a UN commission (UNSCOP) to review the situation.

Once again the Arabs boycotted. The proceedings held by UNSCOP had Jewish representation, but no cooperation from the Arabs. The Jews, of course, petitioned heavily for partitioning. Through their lack of cooperation on repeated attempts to bring about a consolidated Palestinian state with the Jewish population as a integral portion of that state, the Arabs had brought to fruition the promise of the Balfour Declaration. The Jews would now have their own, distinct, and sovereign homeland via the partitioning that would take place.

On May 5, 1947, the newly organized United Nations, still in its infancy and developing its role as a global government, issued one of its more brief resolutions in its history. Resolution 104, irrespective of brevity, most likely will be determined to be the beginning of the most influential decisions the United Nations has ever made in bringing the world to its polarization of east versus west.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 104, in its entirety, reads:

"The General Assembly

Resolves:

1. That the First Committee grant a hearing to the Jewish Agency for Palestine on the question before the Committee;

2. To send to that same Committee for its decision those other communications of a similar character from the Palestinian population which have been received by the special session of the General Assembly or may later be submitted to it."

The next phase would be the Partitioning of Palestine.

[Steve Gardner]

Part II - Zionism and Arab Nationalism

Written April, 2004.

The journey to the U.N. partitioning of Palestine is incomplete without a review of the political positioning and diplomatic machinations of both sides of the Palestinian issue. These efforts pre-date the Balfour Declaration and the Mandatory years, and continue through that period to the very partitioning phase. In fact, these efforts produced the Balfour Declaration and the Mandatory years, and the eventual partitioning itself. In order to "get to the beginning" we must look past the twentieth century.

One must go back to 1894, in fact, and to one man, alone, and unjustly persecuted. A man who would have nothing, directly, to do with Zionism, Palestine, or the next century's conflicts. His name was Alfred Dreyfus and he was a Captain in the French army. In 1894 he was accused of treason and court-martialed. He was found guilty during this trial, but later completely exonerated of all charges and pardoned by the president of France in 1899. It was proven that the entire framing of Captain Dreyfus was anti-semitic in motivation.

The Birth of Zionism

The link between Captain Dreyfus and the Zionist movement can be found in Theodor Herzl. Herzl was a journalist at the time of the Dreyfus trial and journeyed to France to cover the court-martial proceedings. While there Herzl witnessed seething anti-semitism. Mobs shouted "Death to the Jews" and the hatred against the Jewish people had saturated the French air. At the same time, the Jewish immigration to Palestine, which had begun in 1882 with the First Aliyah, was due to persecution of Jews in Russia. Herzl concluded that anti-semitism would forever exist in societies in which Jews were assimilated, and for this reason, the only conceivable solution would be the separation of the Jewish people from the various communities into a homeland of their own.

It was in 1897, after exhaustive efforts by Herzl, that the first Zionist Congress met in Basle, Switzerland. During this first congress the World Zionist Organization was created and it's goals stated via the declaration of the Basle Program.

"Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz?Israel secured under public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:

1. The promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Eretz-Israel of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers.

2. The organization and uniting of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.

3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness.

4. Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism ."

Theodor Herzl would later state of this momentous occasion:

"In Basle I founded the Jewish state . . . Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it.?

The behind the scenes efforts toward these goals began immediately. In October 1898 Kaiser William II of Prussia visited Constantinople and Palestine in hopes of building an alliance with the Ottoman Turks. At the same time, Theodor Herzl traveled to the Turkish capital and Jerusalem with the singular intent of meeting the German emperor and the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to discuss the issue of an autonomous Jewish homeland in Palestine. These meetings were disappointing to the Zionist goals.

Herzl turned to Britain. The first meeting between Herzl and Colonial Secretary of Britain, Joseph Chamberlain, was on October 22, 1902. In this meeting, Herzl presented the Zionist plans for colonization of Cyprus and the Sinai Peninsula. The Sinai colonization plan was referred to as the "El-Arish Project". Both the El-Arish project and the plans for Cyprus called for autonomous Jewish settlements under Jewish administration. The El-Arish Project would have been most likely sanctioned by the U.K. had it not been for the fact that the water requirements for the Jewish settlement were eventually determined to be far greater than first estimated, and the Egyptians declared that these requirements of the Nile would not be acceptable.

On April 23, 1903, he met with Chamberlain again. At this meeting Chamberlain proposed that the United Kingdom was more than willing to allow an autonomous homeland for the Jewish people...in Uganda. Herzl presented this to the WZO at the Sixth Zionist Congress. Though the offer was ultimately rejected, the negotiations that took place between Herzl and Chamberlain over this two year period were the first legitimate recognition of the WZO being the official representative organization for the Jewish people.

At this point, maybe on the premise that "possession is 9/10ths of the law", Herzl initiated the Second Aliyah which would result in 30,000 Jewish settlers immigrating into Palestine from 1904-1914. Included in these immigrants would be the founding fathers of the Nation of Israel. This, along with the First Aliyah, brought the Palestinian-Jewish population from 24,000 in 1882 to around 75,000 by 1914.

Herzl died in 1904, prior to the Seventh Zionist Congress. It was at this congress that the Ugandan Proposal was officially rejected. Over the next six years the Zionist Congresses would be consumed with internal disputes between varying forms of Zionism. Chaim Weizmann took the role as leader of the WZO.

But an opportunity arose in 1919, that could not be missed. World War I had ended leaving 37 million people dead and Europe shattered. The diplomats of the nations converged on the Palace of Versailles for the Paris Peace Conference and the long arduous work of mending global wounds.

The Zionist Organization submitted a proposal to the Peace Conference in which it asked that the mandate of Palestine be considered, the historical connection of the Jewish people to the area be taken into account, the Balfour Declaration be honored, the Palestinian borders be firmly established, and that ultimately the "Jewish National Home", as an autonomous Commonwealth, be created in the Palestinian region. (It is worth noting that a group of Non-Zionist American Jews are reported to have also submitted a statement to the Peace Conference on March 4, 1919, in which they argued against the segregation of the Jewish people into an autonomous homeland, no matter where it be located. It is not believed to have been addressed in the conference.)

The Birth of Arab Nationalism

On the other side of the equation were the Arabs, more specifically the Syrians. The Arabs had fought along side the Allies, mainly British and French troops, not because they were miserable or severely oppressed under the Ottomans, but because they saw a chance for independence (and that perception was promoted by the Allies in such communications as the Balfour Declaration and the McMahon-Hussein Letters). Once the war ended, the Syrians, under Sharif Hussein, assumed the Allied victory to be instantaneous independence, and they began living as such. For a brief time, they enjoyed their new-found and self-proclaimed autonomy. Prince Faysal, son of Sharif Hussein, immediately assumed control of the liberated regions of Syria previously held by the Turks, with the exception of a strip of land along the Mediterranean where French troops still remained. In these areas, the Syrians continued to revolt against French rule.

Unknown to the Arab world was the fact that Britain, France, Italy and Russia had secretly met in the early stages of World War I to "decide the fate of Arab lands." Britain was interested in the oil of the region and France was interested in remaining in power in the region. During these meetings, Britain, despite their commitments to both Arabs and Jews, had agreed to give France say over what happened with Syria and Lebanon post-wartime. This agreement came in the form of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. After the Bolsheviks assumed power in Russia, they released these secret diplomatic papers.

Woodrow Wilson, then president of the United States, was sympathetic to the Zionist movement. However, he was greatly disturbed to learn of the "secret dealings" that had gone on, and the conflicting commitments involving Palestine and other mid-eastern regions. He first called on Prince Faysal to present the Arab side of things. Prince Faysal convened the First Palestinian National Congress which submitted two communications to the Peace Conference. The first condemned and rejected the Balfour Declaration. The second demanded Syrian independence.

Woodrow Wilson called for an multi-Allied committee to investigate. His recommendations were that the committee be made up of individuals from the various allied countries; men who had no connection or experience with the disputed regions. The British and French flatly refused to participate. The result was the King-Crane Commission; an all-American two-man team selected by Wilson himself. King and Crane would spend 42 days investigating "the conditions and wishes of the people in Anatolian Turkey and the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, particularly in regard to self-government, after their defeat by the Great Powers."

The recommendations of the King-Crane report include:

"We recommend, as most important of all, and in strict harmony with our Instructions, that whatever foreign administration (whether of one or more Powers) is brought into Syria, should come in not at all as a colonising Power; in the old sense of that term, but as a Mandatory under the League of Nations with a clear consciousness that "the well-being and development," of the Syrian people form for it a "sacred trust."

We recommend, in the second, that the unity of Syria be preserved, in accordance with the earnest petition of the great majority of the people of Syria.

We recommend, in the third place, that Syria be placed under one mandatory Power, as the natural way to secure real and efficient unity.

We recommend, in the fourth place, that Amir Faisal be made head of the new united Syrian State.

We recommend, in the fifth place, serious modification of the extreme Zionist programme for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews, looking finally to making Palestine distinctly a Jewish state."

Contained within the comments concerning the last recommendation:

"The Commissioner began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favour, but the actual facts in Palestine, coupled with the force of the general principles proclaimed by the Allies and accepted by the Syrians have driven them to the recommendation here made.

The Commission recognised also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour's often quoted statement...If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to-favouring "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist programme must be greatly modified. For a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete disposition of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase. In his address, of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great "ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting": "The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material Interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery." If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine-tenths of the whole emphatically against the entire Zionist programme. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the people's rights, though it kept within the forms of law...More than seventy-two percent-1.350 in all the petitions in the whole of Syria were directed against the Zionist programme. Only two requests-- those for a united Syria and for independence had a larger support.

In view of all these considerations, and with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced Zionist programme be attempted by the Peace Conference, and even that, only very gradually initiated. This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up."

The report referenced the resolutions that had come from the General Syrian Congress which had convened in July of 1919. These resolutions were as follows:

"1. We ask absolutely complete political independence for Syria within these boundaries. The Taurus System on the North; Rafeh and a line running from Al-Juf to the south of the Syrian and the Mejazian line to Akaba on the south; the Euphrates and Khabur Rivers and a line extending east of Abu Kamal to the east of Al-Juf on the east; and the Mediterranean on the west

2. We ask that the Government of this Syrian country should be a democratic civil constitutional Monarchy on broad decentralization principles, safeguarding the rights of minorities, and that the King be the Emir Feisal who carried on a glorious struggle in the cause of our liberation and merited our full confidence and entire reliance.

3 Considering the fact that the Arabs inhabiting the Syrian area are not naturally less gifted than other more advanced races and that; they are by no means less developed than the Bulgarians, Serbians, Greeks, and Roumanians at the beginning of their independence, we protest against Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, placing us among the nations in their middle stage of development which stand in need of a mandatory power.

4. In the event of the rejection by the Peace Conference of this just protest for certain considerations that we may not understand, we, relying on the declarations of President Wilson that his object in waging war was to put an end to the ambition of conquest and colonization, can only regard the mandate mentioned in the Covenant of the League of Nations as equivalent to the rendering of economical and technical assistance that does not prejudice our complete independence. And desiring that our country should not fall a prey to colonization and believing that the American Nation is farthest from any thought of colonization and has no political ambition in our country, we will seek the technical and economic assistance from the United States of America, provided that such assistance does not exceed twenty years.

5. In the event of America not finding herself in a position to accept our desire for assistance we will seek this assistance from Great Britain, also provided that such assistance does not infringe the complete independence and unity of our country, and that the duration of such assistance does not exceed that mentioned in the previous article.

6. We do not acknowledge any right claimed by the French Government in any part whatever of our Syrian country and refuse that she should assist us or have a hand in our country under any circumstances and in any place.

7. We oppose the pretentions of the Zionists to create a Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, and oppose Zionist migration to any part of our country; for we do not acknowledge their title, but consider them a grave peril to our people from the national, economical, and political points of view. Our Jewish compatriots shall enjoy our common rights and assume the common responsibilities.

8. We ask that there should be no separation of the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, nor of the littoral western zone which includes Lebanon, from the Syrian country. We desire that the unity of the country should be guaranteed against partition under whatever circumstances.

9. We ask complete independence for emancipated Mesopotamia and that there should be no economical barriers between the two countries.

10. The fundamental principles laid down by President Wilson in condemnation of secret treaties impel us to protest most emphatically against any treaty that stipulates the partition of our Syrian country and against any private engagement aiming at the establishment of Zionism in the southern part of Syria, therefore we ask the complete annulment of these conventions and agreements."

The King-Crane Report was supplied to the Peace Conference in August 1919. Britain and France suppressed the report, and it's recommendations were, in full, disregarded. It wasn't even published until 1947. Prince Faysal returned to Syria and announced once again that Syria was a free and independent nation. France and Britain both refused to recognize the sovereignty of Syria and instead met in 1920 at the Supreme Allied Council and declared the mandates as previously set out by the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Despite the clearly voiced animosity toward the French by the Syrians, Syria became a French mandate.

As stated by the Library of Congress Country Studies:

"These events left a lasting bitterness against the West and a deep-seated determination to reunite Arabs into one state. This was the primary basis for modern Arab nationalism and the central ideological concept of future pan-Arab parties, such as the Baath (Arab Socialist Resurrection) Party and the Arab National Movement. Aspects of the ideology also were evolved in the 1950s and 1960s by Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt."

The Fourth Palestinian National Congress decided to send a delegation to London to present the Arab argument against the Balfour Declaration. This delegation arrived in London in 1922, rejected the Balfour Declaration and demanded national independence. Instead of independence, they got Churchill's White Paper.

The Biltmore Document

In 1929, the Zionist and non-Zionist halves of the global Jewish community had apparently resolved all issues of debate between themselves, and after the 16th Zionist Congress held in Zurich the Jewish Agency for Palestine formally came into existence. It's intended role to be the "organizational instrument" for the building of the Jewish homeland. And that this organization had been resolved to fulfill its responsibilities in this role is evident in the Biltmore Document.

The Biltmore Document was so named because the Extraordinary Zionist Conference of 1942 was held in the Biltmore Hotel in New York. Lest the leaders of the world assert they knew nothing at this point of the concentration and death camps, or the Jewish ghettos of the Nazis, the Biltmore document stands in testament that they at least had been made aware once on May 11, 1942. Included in the Biltmore declarations:

"1. American Zionists assembled in this Extraordinary Conference reaffirm their unequivocal devotion to the cause of democratic freedom and international justice to which the people of the United States, allied with the other United Nations, have dedicated themselves, and give expression to their faith in the ultimate victory of humanity and justice over lawlessness and brute force.

2. This Conference offers a message of hope and encouragement to their fellow Jews in the Ghettos and concentration camps of Hitler-dominated Europe and prays that their hour of liberation may not be far distant."

The main point of the "extraordinary" conference and the Biltmore Document was to call for "the fulfillment of the original purpose of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate which recognizing the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine' was to afford them the opportunity, as stated by President Wilson, to found there a Jewish Commonwealth"; and to reject the British White Paper of 1939 as being in violation of the British Mandate.

In Wilsonian language it concluded:

"The Conference declares that the new world order that will follow victory cannot be established on foundations of peace, justice and equality, unless the problem of Jewish homelessness is finally solved. The Conference urges that the gates of Palestine be opened; that the Jewish Agency be vested with control of immigration into Palestine and with the necessary authority for upbuilding the country, including the development of its unoccupied and uncultivated lands; and that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world.

Then and only then will the age old wrong to the Jewish people be righted."

Once again we are brought to the partitioning of Palestine.

[Steve Gardner]

Part III - UNSCOP and the Partitioning Plan

Written May, 2004.

On April 2, 1947, the U.K. took its first steps in unloading its " problem with Palestine" onto the United Nations. This first step came in the form of a letter written by Sir Alexander Cadogan, the U.K. representative to the U.N. Security Council. The letter requested the U.N. make recommendations "concerning the future government of Palestine." A Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly was docketed for April 28 to discuss the issue.


Immediately the Arab leaders in the region reacted and in a concerted effort seized the moment of opportunity offered by the U.K.'s willingness to hand-over the issue; and their Mandate. The Iraqi Government submitted a request on April 21 to include in the agenda of this special session "The Termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the Declaration of its Independence." A telegram from Egypt was sent to the U.N. on the same date from Egyptian Ambassador Mahmoud Hassan requesting the identical item be included in the session. The next day brought an identical request from the governments of Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. And finally, on the 23rd, the same request from the Syrian government.

The issue of the termination of the British mandate over Palestine, and the independence of a Palestinian state was added to the General Committee items on April 25, 1947. The General Committee was to vote on which items submitted to it would proceed either to the General Assembly for discussion, or to a Special Session. However, On May 1, the General Committee voted on whether the Palestinian question would, in fact, be considered at the Second Regular Session and though the vote was positive to hear the Palestinian issue (as requested by the U.K.), only one member of the 14 voted to also consider the issues of termination of the British Mandate and the independence of Palestine. These issues were stricken from consideration for the following reason:

1. Absence of Jewish organizations authorized to appear;
2. Lack of sufficient information;
3. Eventual repercussions on the present state of affairs in Palestine.

When the intent of the General Committee is taken into account, to vote on whether an issue will be considered before the General Assembly or a Special Session, the above reasons for exclusion of the Palestinian issues on the agenda become perplexing. As the Syrian delegate would point out later, the only legitimate reasons for voting against inclusion would have been procedural, and none of the reasons given were procedural, but instead political. The only procedural requirement that could have left the issues unqualified for discussion was that they be submitted within 4 days of the General Committee meeting. They were submitted 5 days prior.

The U.S. was among the nations that voted against the Palestinian independence issue being brought before the Special Session. The statement given by the U.S. with it voted against the Palestinian independence issue gives no reason for the negative vote:

"The United States, in declining to give its consent and vote to the Arab resolution, is not by any means precluding the independence of Palestine as an ultimate issue for the solution of this problem. The terms of all class A mandates, whether expressly included in the special treaties setting up the mandate, or by reference to the Covenant of the League of Nations, envisaged ultimate independence for all class A mandates. None of us are in disagreement on that point ."

The first U.N. Special Session in history convened on April 28 in New York. The Special Session accepted statements from the various parties involved in the Palestinian issue. The British reiterated their original statements in their request for U.N. involvement by stating they had tried for years to solve the problem of Palestine and had been unsuccessful and, therefore, welcomed a solution from the U.N.

The Jewish Agency for Palestine restated the commitment to a Jewish Homeland in Palestine made in the Balfour document. The Agency stated that the Balfour document had recognized their historic connection to the area. It requested that the Special Session review the pioneering efforts of the Jews in Palestine and the improvements that had resulted, and investigate the cause of the increasing violence in the area.

On the other hand, the Arab Higher Committee stated the Balfour document itself was "the root cause of all the troubles in Palestine and the Middle East" because it was made without consideration or voice of the people most affected, and it was in direct contradiction to " the principles of national self- determination and democracy and the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations...". It stated that the problem was not an Arab-Jew problem, but at the same time declared all Jewish immigration into Palestine illegal. Albeit indirectly, the Arab Committee recognized the Jewish historical connection to the land but stated: "History could not be put back twenty centuries to give away a country on the ground of a transitory historic association, or the map of the whole world should have to be re-drawn." It suggested to the Special Session that the only way the issue could be resolved was to declare Palestine independent.

On May 15th, the Special Session announced the creation of a special committee, the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), via Resolution 106. The member nations were: Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. The Great Powers had been eliminated from consideration as members to UNSCOP because of the perceived inability for them to be impartial due to conflicting interests.

"The Special Committee was given wide powers to ascertain and record facts, to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to make recommendations. It was authorized to conduct investigations in Palestine and wherever it might deem useful, and was to report not later than September 1, 1947."

On June 13, 1947, the Arab Higher Committee cabled the U.N. and declared that after consideration of the situation "they resolved that Palestine Arabs should obstain from collaboration and desist from appearing before the Special Committee."

On July 10, UNSCOP sent a communication to the Arab Higher Committe requesting that it reconsider its decision and cooperate with the UNSCOP investigation. Three days later UNSCOP received a letter from the Arab Higher Committee stating they saw no reason to reverse it previous decision. The Jewish Agency, on the other hand, did provide representation to the UNSCOP meetings when invited.

Eventually, at the request of certain members of UNSCOP, another attempt was made to bring in the Arab voice. This time, rather than approach the Arab Higher Committee, letters of invitatin were sent to the consular representative in Jerusalem of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Transjordan, and to the consular representative in Lebanon of Yemen. Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria accepted.

Included in UNSCOP's finding of "The Present Situation" were:

The atmosphere in Palestine today is one of profound tension. In many respects the country is living under a semi-military regime. In the streets of Jerusalem and other key areas barbed wire defences, road blocks, machine-gun posts and constant armoured car patrols are routine measures. In areas of doubtful security, Administration officials and the military forces live within strictly policed security zones and work within fortified and closely-guarded buildings. Freedom of personal movement is liable to severe restriction and the curfew and martial law have become a not uncommon experience. The primary purpose of the Palestine Government, in the circumstances of recurring terrorist attacks, is to maintain what it regards as the essential conditions of public security. Increasing resort has been had to special security measures provided for in the defence emergency regulations.128/ Under these regulations, a person may be detained for an unlimited period, or placed under police supervision for one year, by order of an area military commander; and he may be deported or excluded from Palestine by order of the High Commissioner. Where there are "reasons to believe that there are grounds which would justify . . . detention ... or deportation", any person may be arrested without warrant by any member of His Majesty's Forces or any police officer and detained for not more than seven days, pending further decision by the military commander. The regulations concerning military courts prohibit a form of judicial appeal from or questioning of a sentence or decision of a military court.129/ Under the regulations, widespread arrests have been made; and as of 12 July 1947, 820 persons130/ were being held in detention on security grounds, including 291 in Kenya under Kenya's 1947 ordinance dealing with the control of detained persons. The detainees were all Jews with the exception of four Arabs. In addition to these, 17,873 illegal immigrants were under detention."

"The right of any community to use force as a means of gaining its political ends is riot admitted in the British Commonwealth. Since the beginning of 1945 the Jews have implicitly claimed this right and have supported by an organized campaign of lawlessness, murder and sabotage their contention that, whatever other interests might be concerned, nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of a Jewish State and free Jewish immigration into Palestine. It is true that large numbers of Jews do not today attempt to defend the crimes that have been committed in the name of these political aspirations. They recognize the damage caused' to their good name by these methods in the court of world opinion. Nevertheless, the Jewish community of Palestine still publicly refuses its help to the Administration in suppressing terrorism, on the ground that the Administration's policy is opposed to Jewish interests. The converse of this attitude is clear, and its result, however much the Jewish leaders themselves may not wish it, has been to give active encouragement to the dissidents and freer scope to their activities."

And as relayed by three of the Arab states that particpated:

"Zionism, however, does not content itself with mere propaganda in favour of the fulfilment of its expansionist projects at the expense of the Arab countries. Its plan involves recourse to terrorism, both in Palestine and in other countries. It is known that a secret army has been formed with a view to creating an atmosphere of tension and unrest by making attempts on the lives of representatives of the governing authority and by destroying public buildings . . . This aggressive attitude, resulting from the mandatory Power's weakness in dealing with them, will not fail to give rise in turn to the creation of similar organizations by the Arabs. The responsibility for the disturbances which might result therefrom throughout the Middle East will rest solely with the Zionist organizations, as having been the first to use these violent tactics." It was declared at the same meeting that "against a State established by violence, the Arab States will be obliged to use violence; that is a legitimate right of self- defence."

It must be pointed out that by 1947 the Jewish population had grown to one-third the total population of Palestine.

UNSCOP Recommendations

UNSCOP recommended that the British mandate be terminated immediately and that the independence of Palestine (in whatever form it might exist) be achieved as quicky as possible.

UNSCOP quickly rejected both extremes for the future "state" of Palestine: a single independent state of Palestine under either Jewish or Arab domination. It focused instead on the "binational" and "cantonal" proposals. After lengthy discussion it was concluded that neither of these systems would be practical. The committee moved to analyzing the feasibility of partitioning, or a federal-State plan.

UNSCOP ultimately by majority recommended a partitioned Palestine. ( The minority plan, backed by India, Iran and Yugoslavia was for an independet federal state comprising an Arab state, Jewish state and Jerusalem as the capital.)

The recommendations for a partitioned Palestine included the recommendation of a "unified economy". The Economic Union of the separate states would be administered via a Joint Economic Board.

The partitioning plan would result in Palestine being divided into three parts: an Arab state, a Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem.

"The proposed Arab State will include Western Galilee, the hill country of Samaria and Judea with the exclusion of the City of Jerusalem, and the coastal plain from Isdud to the Egyptian frontier. The proposed Jewish State will include Eastern Galilee, the Esdraelon plain, most of the coastal plain, and the whole of the Beersheba subdistrict, which includes the Negeb.

The three sections of the Arab State and the three sections of the Jewish State are linked together by two points of intersection, of which one is situated south-east of Afula in the sub-district of Nazareth and the other north-east of El Majdal in the sub-district of Gaza."

The Arab State

"Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and in the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to Qadas; on the east the boundary starting from Qadas passes southwards, west of Safad to the south-western corner of the Safad sub-district;

thence it follows the western boundary of the Tiberias sub-district to a point just east of Mount Tabor; thence southwards to the point of intersection south-east of Afula mentioned above. The south-western boundary of Western Galilee takes a line from this point, passing south of Nazareth and Shafr Amr, but north of Beit Lahm, to the coast just south of Acre.

The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starting on the Jordan River south-east of Beisan follows the northern boundary of the Samaria district westwards to the point of intersection south-east of Afula, thence again westwards to Lajjun, thence in a south-western direction, passing just west of Tulkarm, east of Qalqilia and west of Majdal Yaba, thence bulging westwards towards Rishon-le-Zion so as to include Lydda and Ramie in the Arab State, thence turning again eastwards to a point west of Latrun, thereafter following the northern side of the Latrun-Majdal road to the second point of intersection, thence south-eastwards to a point on the Hebron sub-district boundary south of Qubeiba, thence following the southern boundary of the Hebron sub-district to the Dead Sea.

The Arab section of the coastal plain runs from a .point a few miles north of Isdud to the Egyptian frontier, extending inland approximately eight kilometres."

The Jewish State

The north-eastern sector of the proposed Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) will have frontiers with the Lebanon in the north and west and with Syria and Transjordan on the east and will include the whole of the Huleh basin. Lake Tiberias and the whole of the Beisan sub- district. From Beisan the Jewish State will extend north-west following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Jewish sector on the coastal plain extends from a point south of Acre to just north of Isdud in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa, Tel-Aviv and Jaffa. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Beersheba area includes the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, which includes the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district south of the point of intersection. The northern boundary of this area, from the point of intersection, runs south-eastwards to a point on the Hebron sub-district boundary south of Qubeiba, and thence follows the southern boundary of the Hebron sub-district to the Dead Sea.

The City of Jerusalem

The boundaries of the City of Jerusalem are as defined in the recommendations on the City of Jerusalem...The City of Jerusalem shall be placed under an International Trusteeship System by means of a Trusteeship Agreement which shall designate the United Nations as the Administering Authority, in accordance with Article 81 of the Charter of the United Nations."

The partitioning plan recommended by UNSCOP would have certain issues that would be problematic. Though the areas proposed to be included in the Arab state would be predominantly Arab, the areas proposed to be included in the Jewish state would be almost 50/50 Jewish/Arab. In addition, the areas proposed to be the Jewish state would leave no inherent outlet to the Mediterranean sea for the Arab state and therefore the recommendations included a "policy" allowing Arab access through Jewish territory.

On September 26, 1947, Britain accepted the recommendations of UNSCOP on the termination of the British Mandate and committed to removing British troops from Palestine as quickly as possible. However, the U. N. had not worked out exactly who would enforce the partitioning and transitional periods.

On September 29th, the Arab Higher Committee rejected the UNSCOP recommendations and that it would settle for nothing less than an independent Arab state and included the following statement:

"...that the Arabs of Palestine were determined to oppose with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provided for segregation or partition, or that would give to a minority special and preferential status."

At the next General Assembly meeting the U.K. stated that it was not prepared to solely oversee the partitioning and transitional periods of the UNSCOP recommendations and that the U.N. needed to determine what member nations would participate. The Jewish Agency stated their acceptance of the UNSCOP recommendations. The Arab Higher Committee flatly rejected them.

The General Assembly formed two sub-committees. One to work out the details of the partitioning plan. Members were: Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Poland, Union of South Africa, United States, Uruguay, U.S.S.R. and Venezuela. The second sub-committee was to work on the Arab Higher Committee proposal for an independent unitary state of Palestine. Members were: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen.

Ultimately the General Assembly placed the "Plan of Partition with Economic Union" up for vote. It was adopted by a vote of 33 to 13 with 11 abstentions. The voting record is as follows:

In favour: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian, S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.S.R., United States, Uruguay, Venezuela

Against: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen

Abstained: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia

The partitioning plan was detailed in U.N. Resolution 181 with the partitioning map included.

[Steve Gardner]

Part IV - Palestine Goes Militant

Written May, 2004.

On November 30, 1947, the day after the U.N. announcement of its Palestinian partitioning plan, which allowed for a Jewish homeland, Jewish settlements in the area were attacked by Arab Palestinians. The Jewish response came in the form of a call, by the Haganah, for all Jewish males age 17 to 25 to enlist for military service. The Arab League countered with the formation of the Arab Salvation Army.


On December 8, 1947, Britain recommended to the U.N. the termination of the Palestinian Mandate on May 15, 1948 and that the Jewish and Palestinians states be established within two weeks.

The area continued daily to increase in violence between the Jews and Arab Palestinians.

On January 9, 1948, the U.N. Palestine Commission met and detailed the termination of the British Mandate and the withdrawal of British troops scheduled for May 15th.

By March of 1948 the violence had become more organized on both sides in Palestine. Violence had turned to military and paramilitary activities. Neighboring Arab states were sending fighters in to fight on the Arab side, and both sides were purchasing and importing weapons. The U.N. found the need to meet concerning the "armed groups" perpetuating the violence. On March 19, 1948, the U.S. submitted a proposal to the U.N. in which it stated that the partitioning could not be achieved by peaceful means under the current conditions.

"The loss of life in the Holy Land must be brought to an immediate end. The maintenance of international peace is at stake."

The U.S. recommended that a temporary trusteeship be implemented once the British withdrew so that the region could be brought to a peaceful condition. It also recommended that the implementation of the partitioning plan be suspended.

On March 25th President Truman reiterated the concerns of the U.S. about the situation in Palestine.

"This country vigorously supported the plan for partition with economic union recommended by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine and by the General Assembly. We have explored every possibility consistent with the basic principles of the Charter for giving effect to that solution. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means. We could not undertake to impose this solution on the people of Palestine by the use of American troops, both on Charter grounds and as a matter of national policy."

"The United Kingdom has announced its firm intention to abandon its mandate in Palestine on May 15. Unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result. Such fighting would infect the entire Middle East and could lead to consequences of the gravest sort involving the peace of this Nation and of the world.

These dangers are imminent. Responsible governments in the United Nations cannot face this prospect without acting promptly to prevent it. The United States has proposed to the Security Council a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine to provide a government to keep the peace."

"If we are to avert tragedy in Palestine, an immediate truce must be reached between the Arabs and Jews of that country. I am instructing Ambassador Austin to urge upon the Security Council in the strongest terms that representatives of the Arabs and Jews be called at once to the council table to arrange such a truce."

"The United States is prepared to lend every appropriate assistance to the United Nations in preventing bloodshed and in reaching a peaceful settlement. If the United Nations agrees to a temporary trusteeship, we must take our share of the necessary responsibility. Our regard for the United Nations, for the peace of the world, and for -our own self -interest does not permit us to do less."

On April 1 the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasing of violence in Palestine and for the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee to send representatives to the Security Council for the purpose of achieving a truce. After conversations with representatives from the two groups the Security Council issued Resolution 46 on April 17, 1948. Resolution 46 called for a cease of all military, paramilitary activity, as well as all unorganized violence; a cease of supply of Arab fighters and weapons from surrounding Arab countries; and for Britain to do all within its power, as it still remained Mandatory, to bring about and maintain peace. On April 23rd a "Truce Commission" was created in Resolution 48. This commission was composed of "representatives of those members of the Security Council which have career consular officers in Jerusalem" - with Syria declining to participate.

On May 14th the General Assembly issued Resolution 186, which decommission the U.N. Palestine Commission and called for the appointment of a mediator for Palestine. On this same day, from Tel Aviv, the Declaration of the Nation of Israel's Independence was issued. The British would pull out the next day, and the violence would continue to this day.

[Steve Gardner]

Flight to 911 - Part V - The Buck and The Bulldozer

Written June, 2004.

Intent cannot always be discerned from a distance. Reality, whatever that may be, is not always defined by fact, but by perception. What we see, what we discern from our vantage point, defines our reality; facts need not be included. Whatever the intentions have been behind the continuous U.S. aide to Israel since 1949, in 2001 the perception by the Arab world of that intent could have been to aide and abet a nation led by an alleged war criminal.


The Buck

Since 1976 Israel has been the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign aide. It is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aide since World War II.

A comparison of U.S. aide to Israel versus U.S. aide to the neighboring Arab states and nations drives home the perceived imbalance in the U.S. position concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the Arab world.

"The impressive numbers for U.S. aid to Israel become even more so when they, and the attached conditions, are compared with other Middle East countries. The roughly $3.3 billion in annual aid compares with some $2 billion for Egypt, $225 million for Jordan, and $35 million for Lebanon. Aid for the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not earmarked, but has been running at about $100 million. Furthermore, aid to the PA is strictly controlled by the U.S. Agency for International Development, and goes for specific projects, mostly civil infrastructure projects such as water and sewers.

On the other hand, the U.S. gives Israel all of its economic aid directly in cash, with no accounting of how the funds are used. The military aid from the DOD budget is mostly for specific projects. Significantly however, considering current events, one of those projects was the development of the Merkava tank, which has been encircling and firing on Palestinian towns in the West Bank and Gaza.

The only condition the congressional foreign aid bill places on military aid to Israel is that about 75 percent of it has to be spent in the U.S. In contrast with other countries receiving military aid, however, who purchase through the DOD, Israel deals directly with U.S. companies, with no DOD review.

Special mention should also be made of the details of the Wye agreement. All of the $400 million going to the PA under the agreement is economic aid, whereas all of the $1.2 billion for Israel is for military projects and programs. These include $40 million for armored personnel carriers and $360 million for Apache helicopters, again significant considering current events."

This enormous difference in aide alone can be understood to fuel animosity toward the U.S. in the Arab world when viewing the long- standing Palestinian-Israeli conflict from an unbiased position. But a second factor comes into play at the beginning of 2001, which distorts the perception of this funding even further.

The Bulldozer

Ariel Sharon joined the Haganah, at the age of 14, in 1942. The Haganah was an underground Israeli military organization that existed in the pre-partitioned Jewish-Palestinian region from 1920 to 1948. Included in the terrorist activities of the Haganah is the bombing of the King David Hotel on July 22, 1946 in which 91 people were killed and 45 injured. Though the bombing was carried out by the Jewish underground military organization Irgun Tsvai-Leumi, the command was issued by Moshe Sneh, chief of the Haganah General Headquarters.

The King David Hotel was also the venue for a second incident involving the Haganah July 8, 1948. With the U.N. flag still flying over the hotel, which had been the U.N. local headquarters, the Haganah moved in and took over the hotel from the U.N. personnel committing a breach of Truce Agreement.

In 1953, Sharon founded the "101" special commando unit in the Israeli defense forces. The "101" is described as a special force for carrying out "retaliatory operations". The retaliatory operations came in the form of the Qibya attack of October 14, 1953. The attack was justified as retaliation against repetitive "infiltration" of Israel by Jordanians. The infiltration came in two forms: illegal movement across the lines by individuals with no malice for the sake of employment, immigration, or to visit people within Israel; and infiltration by malevolent individuals for the sake of terrorist attacks. Two days before the Qibya attack an incident which fell into the latter form of infiltration took place in which alleged infiltrators threw a hand grenade into a house in the Israeli village of Yahud resulting in the death of two children and a woman. It is believed this spurred the Qibya attack.

In the Qibya attack the Israeli 101, in a "battalion scale attack" led by Sharon, entered the village of Qibya, Jordan, at approximately 9:30 at night. Using atutomatic weapons, hand grenades, bangalore torpedoes and TNT explosives, the 101 completely destroyed 41 houses and a school building. The attack resulted in 42 deaths with 38 of these deaths being women and children, and 15 wounded. The attack lasted until 3 a.m. at which time the 101 withdrew. During the withdrawal support Israeli troops shelled neighboring Jordanian villages of Budrus and Shuqba. This attack came on the same day that the Mixed Armistice Commission had condemned Israeli ambushes on a civilian bus and a taxi.

The Mixed Armistice Commission immediately condemned Israel for the attacks on Quibya, Shuqba and Budrus and the Jordanian government called on the Israeli government to "take immediate and most urgent steps to prevent the recurrence of such aggressions of Jordan and Jordan citizens".

On October 18, 1953, the U.S. Department of State issued a statement which included expressing it's "deepest sympathy for the families of those who lost their lives" in the Qibya attack as well as the conviction that those responsible "should be brought to account and that effective measures should be taken to prevent such incidents in the future."

On November 24, 1953, the U.N. Security Council issued Resolution 101 in which it found that the attack on Qibya was, in fact, an attack by "armed forces of Israel". Resolution 101 censured the Israeli attack and requested the Israeli government "take effective measures to prevent all such actions in the future". Though the U.S. State Department had expressed its desire to see the conviction of those reponsible, the U.N. Security Council resolution did not fulfill the requested desire of the Jordanian government that the Israeli military and government officials involved in the attack be brought to international justice.

In 1956 Sharon was commander of a Paratroop Corps fighting in the Sinai Campaign. In August 1995 Arye Biro, a paratrooper commander who served under Sharon in the Sinai Campaign, came forward in an interview with The Daily Telegraph and admitted to the execution of 50 unarmed Egyptian prisoners.

In 1982 Ariel Sharon had fully earned his nickname as "The Bulldozer" in his role as Minister of Defense by organizing the invasion of Lebanon in "Operation Peace for Galilee" in which 29,500 Palestinians and Lebanese were killed or wounded over a less than 6 week period. 40 percent were children.

Shortly after these raids into Gaza, the massacre at two contiguous Lebanese refugee camps, Sabra and Shatilla took place. The total dead from the raid on the two camps that lasted from 6:00 p.m. September 16, 1982 to 8:00 a.m. September 18th has never been resolved. Though neither the Kahan Commission (an investigation undertaken by Yitzhak Kahan, president of the Israeli Supreme Court) or the U.N. concluded direct complicity for Sharon, the Kahan Commission did conclude dereliction of duty on Sharon's part.

"It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged."

In these raids, the refugee camps were surrounded by Israeli troops at close proximity. The Israeli troops fired flares at a rate of one every 2 minutes for visual aide. Phalangists, rival Lebanese troops who were allied with Israel (Lebanon was suffering a civil war at the time), were allowed to enter both camps. At least 762 people were murdered, many of them women and children, and many mutilated including disembowelment.

The U.N. immediately condemned the atrocities at Sabra and Shatilla in Resolution 521. This was immediately followed by a letter from the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Within this letter it was explicitly stated that the atrocities that occurred at the Lebanese refugee camps would not have happened had Israel not been involved in the situation.

"This tragedy, which parallels the worst horrors perpetrated during the Second world War, must forever remain a blot on the conscience of mankind. It is, moreover, a direct consequence of Israel's invasion of Lebanon which had already caused the killing of thousands of unarmed civilians, including women and children.

Israel's armed interference in the affairs of a neighbouring country is to be strongly condemned. Peace in the region requires that Israel be compelled to withdraw from Lebanon and all the territories it has illegally occupied.

The Committee has repeatedly pointed out that incidents such as this latest massacre, as well as the repeated injustices in the illegally occupied Arab territories, would continue as long as the Palestinian people are prevented by Israel from exercising their inalienable rights in their own independent State. The responsibilities of the United Nations in this regard need no stressing."

In September 24th the U.N. issued Resolution ES-7/9 in which it again condemned the atrocities that occured at Sabra and Shatilla, but this time included within its demands the following:

"(a) Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon;"

The 2001 Perception

At the end of the U.S. fiscal year 2000, the total Foreign Aide given to Israel by the U.S. landed somewhere between $81.38 billion and $91 .82 billion. For the U.S. fiscal year 2001, which began in October 2000, the appropriations bills presented by President Clinton, and approved by Congress, allocated "$2.82 billion in economic and military foreign aid to Israel, an additional $60 million in so-called refugee resettlement and $250 million in the DOD budget, plus $85 million imputed interest, for a total of at least $3.215 billion". In addition, President Clinton had also placed before Congress a special appropriations package requesting "an additional $450 million in military aid to Israel in FY 2001, plus $350 million for FY 2002." This special package also included requests for "225 million in military aid for Egypt and $75 million in security assistance for Jordan".

At the same time, on February 6, 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister of Israel.

Even on the eve of the Israeli election, the headlines that would splatter the year's news had begun:

"Sharon's return puts Wreckage Street in fear" by Phil Reeves, The Independent, January 21, 2001.

"Is Ariel Sharon Israel's Milosevic?" by James Ron, Los Angeles Times, February 5, 2001.

"The Legacy of Ariel Sharon by Robert Fisk, The Independent , February 6, 2001.

"Return of the Terrorist: The Crimes of Ariel Sharon" by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St.-Clair, Counterpunch, February 7, 2001.

"Worldbeaters: Ariel Sharon", New Internationalist, May 2001.

"The Accused", Panorama, BBC, June 17, 2001.

The BBC series of documentaries on Sharon came on the heels of a group of Lebanese survivors from the Sabra and Shatilla massacres lodging a "complaint with a Belgian judge yesterday demanding the indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on war-crimes charges."

So as the calendar swept toward September 11, 2001, the distant perspective of the Arab world, unable to discern intent but defining their reality, saw the marriage of the Buck and Bulldozer in a world that must have seemed unacceptably biased against the perceived injustices of the past century.

[Steve Gardner]

Part VI - The Iranian Hostage Crisis

Written April, 2004.

Up until 1979 the United States had enjoyed an existence as a nation free of, by and large, intentional persecutory actions against its citizenry by international militant groups. From its island across the sea, the U.S. had watched the bombings, raids, hijackings and hostage-takings of a world that seemed to be increasingly filled with non-diplomatic and violent actions; but a very distant world at that. This all changed on November 4, 1979.


On January 16, 1979, the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was overthrown by opposition forces and forced to flee the country. Prior to removing his family to Cairo, and then ultimately into exile in Morroco, he appointed Dr. Shahpour Bakhtier as Prime Minister. Three days later, while still in France, Ayatollah Khomeini, announced he would form a new Iranian government.

On the first of February, 1979, Khomeini, after fifteen years of exile, returned to a jubilant and welcoming populace in Iran. On February 14 a zealous group of Khomeini followers stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held the personnel hostage for several hours. The incident was ended with no harm to any embassy workers, but the first instance of fear and concern for U.S. citizens' safety in the region had occurred.

By April 1 Iran had become an Islamic Republic, and within a week prominent Iranians were being executed. U.S./Iranian relations disintegrated and sleepless days and nights blurred for U.S. embassy personnel in Tehran in their tireless efforts to bring stability between the two countries. Against their efforts was a growing anti-U.S. sentiment in the new government.

The United States' and Iran's relationship had been solidified during the Nixon presidency. The British had decided to pull their military presence from the Persian Gulf region, which left the U.S. in a precarious position. They needed to be able to monitor the USSR from that region. In May 1972, Nixon agreed to assist the Shah's military build-up in Iran in order to secure a line-of-sight monitoring capability of the Soviet Union from Iran. From that decision on, the U.S. and the Shah became inseparable, even as the Shah's government sank into corruptness.

Shortly after arriving in Morroco, the Shah had decided he would prefer exile in the U.S. The offer for admittance into the U.S. had been available to the Shah from day one. Had he taken the initial offering, there could have possibly been less drama to follow. It is unclear why he did not. But within weeks of arriving in Morocco, the Shah had changed his mind, and Carter had been under pressure to admit him. With the potentially dangerous situation that had occurred in February at the U.S. embassy in Tehran with the brief hostage situation, the matter had now become quite a bit more complicated. The decision to admit the Shah into the United States would be no light matter.

By October, 1979, the Shah's "medical condition" was being promoted as the reason for immediate entry into the U.S. Carter had been advised by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher that he should "test the waters" prior to admitting the Shah (irrespective of whether the medical issue was a valid claim or not). They had advised Carter to let the new Iranian government know that he was tentatively planning to admit the Shah, and then wait to see the response. If the security of the U.S. citizens in the area was deemed to be sufficient, he could then proceed with admittance.

Carter did not follow these recommendations, but instead proceeded with admittance of the Shah on October 20, 1979 for the purpose of medical treatment. This decision left the U.S. embassy personnel in imminent danger.

On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Over 90 hostages were taken. The main demand of the militants was that the U.S. government hand over the Shah to the new Iranian government to be tried for crimes against the Iranian people. The U.S., of course, rejected this demand. Though many hostages were released within hours to days of the original raid, 54 hostages would remain in captivity for 444 days. During those 444 days the U.S. learned how it felt to be at the receiving end of hatred.

Immediately following the taking of the embassy in Tehran, the U.S. placed an oil embargo on Iran.

On November 20, 1979, the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, was seized by 200 Islamic extremists. The result was an intense battle between the extremists and a combined force of Saudi and French security forces. This battle resulted in approximately 250 killed, and 600 wounded. False rumors implicating U.S. involvement in the Mosque seizure instantly swept through the Persian Gulf region. Hatred fueled by these rumors peaked within hours in Islamabad, Pakistan, and on November 21, 1979 the U.S. embassy in that city was overran by an angry mob. A week later this hatred would sweep to the streets of Tripoli where an angry mob would attack and burn the U.S. embassy on December 2, 1979.

The embassy in Tripoli was closed (and would remain so until February 11, 2004).

On December 12, 1979, the U.S. expelled most of the Iranian diplomats in the U.S.

On December 15, 1979, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled unanimously against the standing government of Iran in the case brought before it by the U.S. concerning the hostages and ruled:

"That the Government of Iran, in tolerating, encouraging, and failing to prevent and punish the conduct described...violated its international legal obligations to the United States as provided by

-Articles 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 37 and 47 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
-Articles 28, 31, 33, 34, 36 and 40 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
-Articles 4 and 7 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against internationally Protected persons, including Diplomatic Agents, and

-Articles II (4), XIII, XVIII and XIX of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran, and
-Articles 2 (3), 2 (4) and 33 of the Charter of the United Nations..."

On January 25, 1980, the first presidential election took place in Iran and Dr. Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, the liberal opposition leader was elected by popular vote. However, the Khomeini refused to step down and ultimately Bani-Sadr was driven from the country and into exile in France.

On March 6, 1980, the Islamic militants holding the U.S. hostages threatened to turn the hostages over to the Revolutionary Council. The situation deteriorated further resulting in the U.S. expelling all remaining Iranian diplomats from the U.S. and breaking all diplomatic ties with Iran on April 7. Furthermore, on April 17, the U.S. tightened its economic sanctions against Iran by banning all imports into the country.

On April 24, 1980, eight U.S. Marines were killed in a botched rescue attempt when two helicopters collided in the desert darkness. The rescue was called off and the special forces involved began a long recovery process from this failure.

On May 4, 1980, the ICJ ruled:

"...that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran was under an obligation to make reparation to the Government of the United States of America for the injury caused to the latter in the circumstances described in the Judgment, and that the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between the Parties, should be settled by the Court..."

On July 27, 1980, the Shah died. Though his return to Iran for trial had been the main point for the militants holding the U.S. hostages, the situation had now declined to a state of hatred and anger. The hostages would remain in captivity, not because of a desire to seek revenge on the Shah, but from a desire to seek revenge on the U.S. in general, and the Carter administration specifically.

On November 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected to the presidency of the United States. The hostages were released coincident with his inauguration on January 20, 1981.

On April 6, 1981 the Deputy Agent of the United States informed the ICJ:

"Effective 19 January 1981 the United States and Iran entered into certain mutual commitments in order to resolve the crisis arising out of the detention of the fifty-two United States nationals, and for the settlement of claims between the United States and Iran, as reflected in two declarations issued on that date by the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria. Those declarations provide that upn the certification by the Government of Algeria that the fifty-two U.S. natioanls had safely departed from Iran, 'the United States will promptly withdraw all claims now pending against Iran before the International Court of Justice..."

The hostage situation did not appear to immediately effect President Reagan to the point that security efforts were increased or changed in significant ways, but most assuredly laid a foundation that the coming year's events would build on. 1981 was riddled with significant security issues around the globe.

* On August 31, 1981, the U.S. Air Force at Ramstein was bombed by the Red Army Faction.

* 2 weeks later Frederick Kroesen, Commanding General of the U.S. Army and of the NATO Middle East Section was nearly assassinated.

* On October 6, 1981, during a troop review, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by members of the Takfir Wal-Hajira sect.

On December 4, 1981, the effect of these events became apparent when President Reagan issued Executive Orders 12333 and 12334.

Executive Order 12333 clarifies and confirms the intent of the Intelligence agencies and their activities. It amended the 1947 National Security Act "...in order to provide for the effective conduct of United States intelligence activities and the protection of constitutional rights...". And laid out the following goals, of the U.S. intelligence community:

* "Goals. The United States intelligence effort shall provide the President and the National Security Council with the necessary information on which to base decisions concerning the conduct and development of foreign, defense and economic policy, and the protection of United States national interests from foreign security threats. All departments and agencies shall cooperate fully to fulfill this goal.

* Maximum emphasis should be given to fostering analytical competition among appropriate elements of the Intelligence Community.

* All means, consistent with applicable United States law and this Order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, shall be used to develop intelligence information for the President and the National Security Council. A balanced approach between technical collection efforts and other means should be maintained and encouraged.

* Special emphasis should be given to detecting and countering espionage and other threats and activities directed by foreign intelligence services against the United States Government, or United States corporations, establishments, or persons.

* To the greatest extent possible consistent with applicable United States law and this Order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, all agencies and departments should seek to ensure full and free exchange of information in order to derive maximum benefit from the United States intelligence effort."

Executive Order 12334 created the President's Intelligence Oversight Board. The board was created with three members and the ability to appoint (with approval from the President) its own chairman. The powers instilled in this board were:

* "Inform the President of intelligence activities that any member of the Board believes are in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, Executive orders, or Presidential
directives;

* Forward to the Attorney General reports received concerning intelligence activities that the Board believes may be unlawful;

* Review the internal guidelines of each agency within the Intelligence Community concerning the lawfulness of intelligence activities;

* Review the practices and procedures of the Inspectors General and General Counsel of the Intelligence Community for discovering and reporting intelligence activities that may be unlawful or contrary to Executive order or Presidential directive; and

* Conduct such investigations as the Board deems necessary to carry out its functions under this Order"

The responsibilities placed on this board were:

"The Board shall, when required by this Order, report directly to the President. The Board shall consider and take appropriate action with respect to matters identified by the Director of Central Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency or other agencies of the Intelligence Community. With respect to matters deemed appropriate by the President, the Board shall advise and make appropriate recommendations to the Director of Central Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and other agencies of the Intelligence Community."

And the agencies ordered to report to this board were responsible to:

"The heads of departments and agencies of the Intelligence Community shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Board with all information necessary to carry out its responsibilities. Inspectors General and General Counsel of the Intelligence Community shall, to the extent permitted by law, report to the Board concerning intelligence activities that they have reason to believe may be unlawful or contrary to Executive order or Presidential directive."

The restrictions placed on the board included:

"Information made available to the Board shall be given all necessary security protection in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Each member of the Board, each member of the Board's staff, and each of the Board's consultants shall execute an agreement never to reveal any classified information obtained by virtue of his or her service with the Board except to the President or to such persons as the President may designate."

That the events that took place in Iran in 1979-1981 effected a permanent shift in the popular view of the United States across the Persian Gulf region can be evidenced through not only the two embassy raids in Pakistan and Libya, but by the very rumor that fueled these two instances. That popular opinion toward the U.S. was being manipulated through propaganda and insinuation (i.e. the false rumor that the U.S. had been involved in the Grand Mosque seizure) was becoming apparent. The next ten years would see this fomenting continue, and the U.S. machinations to keep up with its effects.

[Steve Gardner]

Part VII - Breaking the Camel's Back

Written June, 2004.

It's an old adage, "the straw that broke the camel's back", indicative of a pivotal moment in one's life that causes a step-wise change in attitude toward some aspect of life. And usually, when the back breaks, the result is not a positive. There is the good chance that an anti-American sentiment was instilled and fostered in Osama bin Laden while at university, but the moment of bin Laden's violence-inducing animosity toward the western world in general, and the U.S. specifically, seems to be a back-breaking step-wise occurrence that can be easily pinpointed. And the pin points most often to the Saud Royal family.


Osama bin Laden's biography is available on line here. Much has been written about his life and therefore this article is not intended as a biography. This article addresses the analysis of when bin Laden stepped over the line to declare war and his western jihad.

As previously stated, there is a high probability that Osama was introduced to fanatical anti-western philosophy and the concept of jihad against western ways (at least against Israel and its allies) while at university. He attended the King Abdul-Aziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. It is worth noting that sources reportedly close to Osama have stated that at this time he was "very non- confrontational". While there, one of his professors and most admired mentors was Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam.

Sheikh Azzam is considered the "godfather of Jihad". He began " fighting the good fight" in his early years while in Jordan. He fought in the 1967 war against Israel in the West Bank of Jordan, and after the 1967 war he fought in the jihad against Israeli occupation. Eventually, the Jordanian government took action to drive the PLO out of Jordan and Sheikh Azzam found himself a jihadist without a cause and fled to Egypt and eventually the King Abdul-Aziz University in Saudi. One would be remiss to not point out what the crux of Azzam's philosophy was, and it is best stated by his current day admirers:

"The Sheikh's life revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's Rule on earth, this being the clear responsibility of each and every Muslim. So in order to accomplish his life's noble mission of restoring the Khilafah, the Sheikh focused on Jihad (the armed struggle to establish Islam). He believed Jihad must be carried out until the Khilafah (Islamic Rule) is established so the light of Islam may shine on the whole world."

And furthermore, these same sources state that Azzam, acting as an evangelist of jihad, saw only one way to implement this:

"From his pulpit Sheikh Azzam was always reiterating his conviction that "Jihad must not be abandoned until Allah (SWT) alone is worshipped (by mankind). Jihad continues until Allah's Word is raised high. Jihad until all the oppressed peoples are freed. Jihad to protect our dignity and restore our occupied lands. Jihad is the way of everlasting glory". When Sheikh Azzam realised that only by means of an organised force would the Ummah ever be able to gain victory, then Jihad and the Gun became his pre-occupation and recreation. " Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogues." he would say."

It is not a stretch to conclude that Osama was a follower of Azzam; and that statement is made literally. In 1979 Sheikh Azzam moved from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan for the purpose of supporting the Afghan Jihad. Shortly after this, in 1980, Osama bin Laden did the same. Eventually, Osama landed in Afghanistan proper, and fought with the mujahedeen as early as the first two weeks of the invading Soviet forces.

Nothing should be taken away from what Osama did for the Afghani people during this time. Osama was instrumental in organizing and funding the mujahedeen. He set up training camps, and safe houses ( most notably the "Guest House" in Peshawar, Pakistan), and he traveled back and forth between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia recruiting young men to fight in the mujahedeen cause. And he fought along side them. He was, in fact, a hero and instrumental in the defeat of the Soviet invading forces in Afghanistan.

In 1988 Osama became disturbed by his inability to account for fighters who migrated to Afghanistan to fight in the mujahedeen. Their family would contact him asking about their status, and due to disorganization he would be unable to account for them. This disturbed Osama enough that he took organizing actions. All movement of mujahedeen and visitors would be documented and their arrival and departure from the guesthouse and the camps would be recorded. It was at this time that the entire infrastructure in Pakistan and Afghanistan came to be known as Al-Qa'edah or "The Base".

That these years of jihad on the Afghani battlefield and the resultant victory against the invaders affected his psyche cannot be dismissed. As some analysts have stated, it instilled a sense of invulnerability. But also, with the Islamic upbringing, and the teachings of Sheikh Azzam driving him, it most assuredly also enforced that Allah was smiling on his actions. Though these underlying theological and philosophical ideaologies might be found to be offensive to some, the actions taken by Osama to this point in his life were not only understandable, but honorable.

In 1989 the Afghanistan jihad had come to a successful end. Osama now looked for his new jihad front and decided that it should be in South Yemen. He returned to Saudi Arabia at this time, allegedly for just a normal visit to his family. While in Saudi, the Kingdom placed a travel ban on Osama and he was basically trapped in the country. It is alleged that the Saud Royal family was both displeased with his talk of jihad in Yemen, but also with several speeches he gave while in Saudi Arabia which discussed the "impending invasion by Saddam". Because the Saudi Royal Family had a good relationship with Saddam at the time, these speeches were not taken well. Osama was order to keep a low profile and to disengage from public speaking.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Osama took it as a fulfillment of his predictions. He immediately wrote a letter to the king offering to bring the mujahedeen from Afghanistan into Saudi to protect them from what he saw as an imminent threat of invasion. The victory in Afghanistan and the invulnerability, and feeling of divine guidance most assuredly fueled this well-intentioned offer by Osama. The Saudi government is reported to have considered the offer. But as Osama stood ready to call to action the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, the first potentially back-breaking event occurred. The Saudi royal family turned to the U.S. American forces entered the kingdom for the fight against Saddam that Osama felt was divinely his. Instead of his Allah-backed jihadi forces defending the Islamic region, the infidels had been called to stand in the holy regions to drive back the Iraqi forces and potentially defend the Saudi kingdom.

Even though Osama is reported to have described this moment as " shocking" and immediately took peaceful, religious action to speak against it, by going to the Ummam and obtaining a fatwah against the royal family's decision, this event only strained the camel's back - it did not break it. And though Osama was deeply disappointed in the Saudi's decision, he had not gone "anti-Saudi" yet.

But apparently the Saudi family had gone "anti-Osama". Somewhere between 1992 and 1994 the Saudi's took their first actions against Osama. He had already fled the country and after visits to Afghanistan and Yemen, had landed in Sudan where he was profiting from a construction boom in that country. Sometime during this period the Saudi government privately froze his assets in that country. And in 1994 the Royal family went public with its animosity toward bin Laden by announcing the withdrawal of his Saudi citizenship.

During this same period of time two anti-American incidences occurred that have been connected to bin Laden*. The attempted bombing of U.S. troops in Yemen in 1992, and the attack of U.S. troops in Somalia in 1993. It can only be assumed that these activities were the driving force behind the Saudi royal family's decision to withdraw his citizenship and it can also be assumed there was most likely U.S. pressure to do so.

But another incident happened in the spring of 1995; a car bomb attack in Riyadh against American military. And as the source states in bin Laden's biography: "Bin Laden never claimed responsibility, but the Saudi government tried to link the incident to bin Laden by showing video confessions of four "Arab Afghans" involved in the bombing."*

In May 1996, upon the claims of the Saudi government, and under pressure from the U.S. government, the Sudanese government expelled bin Laden. This act, which could only be seen by Osama as being an Islamic government acting against a Muslim "fighter for the cause" at the behest of the Great Satan, in combination with the kowtowing of the Saudi family to the U.S. military was, in fact, the last straw. In August of that same year, back in what must have now become his " beloved" Afghanistan, he penned his 12-page fatwa which has become known as his "Declaration of War".

This fatwa by Osama details exactly what had led to both his anti- Saudi and anti-American resolve. The writing is split almost 50/50 between railings against the Saudi family and condemnation of the U.S. military presence in the "Holy Lands". Osama is as incensed at the secularism that has taken place in Saudi as he is at the presence of a foreign force on the kingdom's soil, and, in fact, implies the former has resulted in the latter. It is apparent that he feels what has led to the "invasion" of Muslim lands by foreign forces is as much a leaving behind of theocracy in Saudi Arabia to a more democratic rule than any other root cause.

He rails against the secularism of Saudi Arabia and claims the oppression of the Saudi people via the country's debt, inflation, and corrupt dealings of the Saudi family. He itemizes the actions that have removed the legitimacy of the Saudi family as:

* "Suspension of the Islamic Shari'ah law and exchanging it with man made civil law."

* "The inability of the regime to protect the country, and allowing the enemy of the Ummah - the American crusader forces- to occupy the land for the longest of years."

And then he quotes the accusations railed against the Saudi family from a report entitled "the glorious Memorandum Of Advice" which was apparently drawn up by a number of Saudi citizens and delivered to the king:

* "The intimidation and harassment suffered by the leaders of the society, the scholars, heads of tribes, merchants, academic teachers and other eminent individuals;"

* "The situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is Halal and Haram (lawful and unlawful) regardless of the Shari'ah as instituted by Allah;"

* "The state of the press and the media which became a tool of truth- hiding and misinformation; the media carried out the plan of the enemy of idolising cult of certain personalities and spreading scandals among the believers to repel the people away from their religion..."

* "Abuse and confiscation of human rights;"

* "The financial and the economical situation of the country and the frightening future in the view of the enormous amount of debts and interest owed by the government; this is at the time when the wealth of the Ummah being wasted to satisfy personal desires of certain individuals!! while imposing more custom duties and taxes on the nation..."

* "The miserable situation of the social services and infra-structure especially the water service and supply , the basic requirement of life.,"

* "The state of the ill-trained and ill-prepared army and the impotence of its commander in chief despite the incredible amount of money that has been spent on the army. The gulf war clearly exposed the situation.,"

* "Shari'a law was suspended and man made law was used instead.,"

* "And as far as the foreign policy is concerned the report exposed not only how this policy has disregarded the Islamic issues and ignored the Muslims, but also how help and support were provided to the enemy against the Muslims; the cases of Gaza-Ariha and the communist in the south of Yemen are still fresh in the memory, and more can be said."

The fatwa then turned to the U.S. forces in the mid-east. It should be made clear that in this fatwa there is no statement that can be derived to be a threat against American civilians. The statements of jihad, and the promise of American blood-shed are reserved in-whole toward the U.S. military. And the intent, as stated in the fatwa, is to completely drive the U.S. presence from the region, by any means. It is at this point that bin Laden references the bombing in Riyadh and the attacks on U.S. troops in Mogadishu as examples of bravery in the fight against the "crusaders". Of course, the writing is replete with references to the Zionist-allies, and it is clear that an underlying hatred for the U.S. position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is present, but the focus remains on the larger atrocity in bin Laden's mind - the presence of the U.S. military in the "lands of the Holy Sites".

Through the input of the jihadist teachings of Sheikh Azzam, and the possible anti-American sentiments he may have imparted to Osama via his biased position toward the Palestinian-Israeli situation, and through the consideration of the effect on Osama's psyche of the successful jihad in Afghanistan to lead him to a personal belief of being an appointed "warrior for Islam", an ideaology apparently resulted that ultimately made the juxtaposition of two trends - the secularization and democratization of Saudi, and the presence of the U.S. military as a defending force in place of a Muslim force - unacceptable in bin Laden's mind. And the common factor in both these trends was the Saudi Royal family. And with the situation that existed in 1996 with these two trends in place, Osama's expulsion from a second Muslim country broke the camel's back.

*It should be noted here, in an effort to remain within the truth as can be documented, that though the CIA claims that Osama took credit for these two incidences, this writer has been unable to find a statement of bin Laden to this effect. The "source" of Osama's biography states that there may have been some form of unofficial sanctioning of these acts by bin Laden, but there was no formal organizational support or logistics on bin Laden's behalf. And when Osama's 1996 fatwa is read, the Mogadishu incident is referenced and praised, along with the bombing in Riyahd, but in a disconnected fashion and with no statement of connection to either of the events. If the reader has documented information toward this question, please provide it.

[Steve Gardner]

Part VIII - Catch-22

Written July, 2004.

There are two entrenched thoughts today that run through both the mainstream propangandist camps, as well as the conspiracy camps: 1. The Clinton Administration did nothing to combat the terrorism threat. 2. The Bush Administration has taken unprecedented steps with the Homeland Security initiative and PATRIOT Act that usurp citizens' rights. Unfortunately, when the historical record is reviewed, both of these contentions are found to be without merit. And the stone that kills both these bogies at one time is the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995. By analyzing this failed act, and looking at the PATRIOT Act, a Catch-22 is discovered which ensures one thing: the terrorists WILL win.


By the beginning of 1995 the Clinton administration had taken a hit on U.S. soil in the form of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In response to this wake-up call, Clinton had formally named 12 "terrorist organizations" and frozen their assets in Executive Order 12947. In addition, the Clinton administration submitted the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995.

The response to this proposed act led to very strange bed-fellows in the opposition camp. Who were the opposition? It probably would take less time to name who was for it - Clinton and the Democrats. But a partial list of the opposition includes the rather bizarre mix of: the ACLU,the NRA, the Republicans, and just about every conspiracy theorist alive at the time. The Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act brought hyperbole in the form of "Bringing Back McCarthyism" and the onset of "Big Brother" as well as accusations of the attempt to eliminate Habeus Corpus.

The major points of the proposed act were as follows:

* Provide more tools and resources to federal law enforcement agencies to fight terrorism

* Prevent funding of terrorist organizations - these organizations being identified and stated by the President

* Expedite the deportation process when an alien is identified as being connected with a terrorist organization

* Provide more tools and resources in combatting illegal possession of nuclear material for the purpose of radioactive weapons

* Implement the tracking methods for plastic explosives as defined in the Convention on the Marking or Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, done at Montreal on 1 March 1991.

Now, as can be quickly seen by the first and fourth bullets above, there is some ambiguity in what was meant by "providing more tools and resources" in these particular efforts. So to understand the full intent of these bullets we must know the details behind the broad statements:

"Provide more tools to federal law enforcement agencies fighting terrorism"

This included:

* Amending the Fair Credit Reporting Act to allow financial information to be obtained by FBI for the purpose of tracking funds to identified terrorist organizations.

* Amending Federal law to relax standards on the use of "pen registers" and "trap and trace" devices to allow the FBI to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies. Pen registers are basically tracing devices on outgoing calls made on a phone, while trap and trace devices are "caller ids", or traces of incoming calls.

* Requiring hotel/motel and common transportation carriers (airlines, buses, trains, etc.) to provide records to the FBI in terrorist investigations.

* Funding the FBI's "digital telephony" efforts which would require telephone carriers to install and maintain equipment which would allow electronic surveillance by the FBI.

* Funding a special FBI counter-terrorism fund ($10,000,000 in 4 years).

* Creating an "interagency Domestic Coutnerterrorism Center" which would be headed by the FBI but bring about the collective efforts of the Justice Department, FBI, and "other federal and state law enforcement" agencies.

* Hiring 1000 new agents, prosecutors and "other federal law enforcement and support personnel to investigate, deter, and prosecute terrorist activity".

* Amending the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1968 to allow for greater leeway for the FBI in obtaining wiretaps and roving wiretaps.

"Provide more tools and resources in combatting illegal possession of nuclear material for the purpose of radioactive weapons"

This bullet included the proposal to modify the Posse Comitatus Act to allow U.S. military intervention in domestic law enforcement in cases involving weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and nuclear).

Curiously, the now wrangled practice of detaining alien terrorist suspects indefinitely and without trial, was first offered in the Omnibus act. If, during the expedited deportation process of a suspected terrorist alien, no country would accept them, the act called for the right of the Attorney General to hold them indefinitely, and with no need for trial. In fact, there is little in the Patriot Act that was not proposed in the Omnibus Act; including the Homeland Security structure.

There was no point in the Omnibus act that was not attacked.

The ACLU attacked the wiretapping expansion and relaxing of restrictions on FBI investigations as being in violation of the citizen's right to privacy and the Fourth Amendment. They attacked the proposed presidential ability to designate a group terrorist in nature, and then freeze funds, as in violation of the First Amendment, and insinuated the clause would be used to persecute opposing political groups. They attacked the proposed "secret evidence" in a named terrorist alien deportation trial as unconstitutional. And, of course, they vehemently attacked the clause that would allow the Attorney General to hold a suspected terrorist alien indefinitely without trial.

The NRA attacked the clause which allowed for prosecution of individuals knowingly transferring a weapon for the purpose of use in a crime, and the act's definition of a "terrorist". The hyperbole that accompanied the gun advocates statements included such things as "Hence, the complete destruction of a stop sign by use of a firearm could come within the ambit of the definition." The exaggerations concerning the proposed clause of weapons transfers while knowing the intended use to be criminal included "there is even a possibility that a manufacturer could be prosecuted for selling a type of firearm "having reasonable cause to believe" that the characteristics of that type make it more likely to be used in a crime of violence."

The Republicans attacked the wiretapping clause and the plastic explosives tracking proposal. But mainly, they just attacked it.

Until April 19th, 1995, when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was bombed by a domestic terrorist. The remainder of 1995 would be a blizzard of proposed bills from both Democrats and Republicans aimed toward increasing intelligence capabilities and cracking down on both domestic and international terrorism. Eventually, after the appropriate number of members from both parties had gotten their fingers in the mix, Public Law 104-132, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, was passed.

Many of the contentious proposals in Clinton's Omnibus Act were eliminated from the final law: the increased wiretapping and surveillance powers, for the FBI; taggants in plastic explosives (although it did call for a study by the Attorney General and findings from that study to be reported within 180 days); the "Homeland Security" structure; and much of the deportation clauses concerning suspect aliens (including detaining indefinitely without trial).

After the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta later in the year, Clinton would use his own hyperbole to push to get some of the omitted powers back in. This eventually resulted in an amendment that included the required taggants in plastic explosives. During this second push FBI Director Louis Freeh testified before Senate Intelligence Committee concerning the wiretap proposals. During his testimony he stated:

"The United States and its interests both here and around the world are clearly under attack. And we may be in for a very difficult time with respect to continuation of these types of things."

One can only speculate as to whether 9/11 would have been prevented had the Omnibus Act passed. It is clear that something concerning the event would have been harder to pull off, or easier to detect. But at the same time, the fears and calls of Big Brother that currently exist under the PATRIOT Act and are used to imply the Bush administration is attempting some type of dictatorship would have been present under the Omnibus Act with similar implications toward Clinton.

An analysis of what was attempted by Clinton in 1995/96 and what Bush did in the PATRIOT Act almost 3000 lives later can teach us many things. Preventing terrorism is a Catch-22 not only for the U.S. government, but for the U.S. citizen. Terrorism has an inherent victory embedded within itself. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. No matter whether a given attack is prevented or not, the steps required to try to thwart attacks default the victory to the attackers. Somewhere in this prevention, the U.S. citizen loses something: privacy. The question is: Is that privacy worth a significant number of lives? I'm sure this question has endless answers - and none will be wrong.

[Steve Gardner]

Part IX - Al-Qaeda's Goal of al Khalifa

Written August, 2004.

Last held by the Ottoman Prince abdul Mejid II, the Caliphate has been empty since its abolishment in 1924. Caliphate (khalifa) literally means "Successor of the Prophet", but the position of primary Caliphate is that of ruler of a unified Islamic nation. It is the goal of Al-Qaeda and the various terrorist organizations working either under the umbrella of Al-Qaeda or in concert with it to fill this void. And if Al-Qaeda has their way, the position will be filled by a Wahabbi Caliphate, Osama bin Laden.

In order to understand that the militance and radicalism perpetuated by groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Front of Salvation is not representative of modern-day Islam, one must come to understand that just as there are different "denominations" of Christianity, there too is such in the Islamic religion. Just as the Catholicism that fueled the Crusades was not indicative of all Christian believers at the time, the fanatical Islamists do not represent all Islamic believers.

The radical Islamic beliefs followed and taught by Al-Qaeda are considered part of Islamism. Islamism is a broad term encompassing all forms of Islamic fundamentalism. Included in these movements are the Shi'ites, certain Wahhabis (in particular in Saudi Arabia), certain Deobandis (in India), the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Hamas, the Hizbulla, Islamic Jihad, Jama'at Islamia and Sunni Islamists. Al-Qaeda represents a conjoining of the Saudi Wahabbis, via Osama bin Laden, and the Sunni Islamists.

Unlike the tolerance and coexistence which can be found in the modern -day Islamic world, Islamists believe that Islam requires a theocratic political structure which dictates all aspects of life. They believe in an Islamic state in which all are governed by Sha'ria, which is Islamic law, with strict observance of the Qur'an and religous observances. They believe there should be no foreign presence ( nonbelievers) within this Islamic state, and that this unified Islamic nation should be ruled under a re-established Caliphate. In order to re-establish the unified Islamic nation and the Caliphate, Jihad is necessary to free the believers of Islam currently ruled by "non- Islamic" rulers. (To be clear, a "non-Islamic ruler" is defined as any ruler who is not currently ruling his country in accordance with Sha'ria.) Any country previously under Islamic rule should be brought back under Sha'ria and the Caliphate by Jihad. This Jihad, they believe, is mandatory and actually can be viewed as a sixth pillar of Islam, according to the Islamists.

The ultimate goal of al-Qaida is to establish a Wahhabi Caliphate across the entire Islamic world, by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" (ie non-Wahhabi Islamist).(3)

The organization's main immediate goal is the overthrow of what it sees as the corrupt and heretical governments of Muslim states, and their replacement with the rule of Shari'a (Islamic law). Al-Qaeda is intensely anti-Western, and views the United States in particular as the prime enemy of Islam. Bin Laden has issued several "fatwas" or religious rulings calling upon Muslims to take up arms against the United States.(4)

In order to understand the regions that could fall into the category of "previously ruled by Islam" it is necessary to examine the boundaries of the prior Caliphates.

First the Arab Empire of c. 750:

And the Ottoman Empire of around 1580:

But it should be noted that substantial regions of India also can be considered previously under Muslim rule and therefore fall into the regions targeted in a Caliphate-driven Jihad.

?If the disbelievers occupy a territory belonging to the Muslims, it is incumbent upon the Muslims to drive them out, and to restore the land back to themselves; Spain had been a Muslim territory for more than eight hundred years, before it was captured by the Christians. They [i.e., the Christians] literally, and practically wiped out the whole Muslim population. And now, it is our duty to restore Muslim rule to this land of ours. The whole of India, including Kashmir, Hyderabad, Assam, Nepal, Burma, Behar, and Junagadh was once a Muslim territory. But we lost this vast territory, and it fell into the hands of the disbelievers simply because we abandoned Jihad. And Palestine, as is well-known, is currently under the occupation of the Jews. Even our First Qibla, Bait-ul-Muqaddas is under their illegal possession.? - Jihaad ul-Kuffaari wal- Munaafiqeen

As pointed out by Dr. Nayyer Ali in an article written in June of 2004 in the PakistanLink, the Jihadis have evolved from the heroic fight against invading Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980's through a phase of "fighting the corrupt regimes" in the 1990's that targeted the Egyptian government, the Saud Family, and the rulers in Sudan. By the late 1990's the focus of attention of Al-Qaeda, the prominent jihadist force in the region, had become "the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia, the sanctions on Iraq, and the occupation of Palestine."

But according to Dr. Ali, after 2001 the jihadist movement transitioned to nihilistic tactics aimed at any one who opposes it, including westerners, Shias and moderate Muslims. They have been consumed with the teachings of Khomeini, Mawdudi and Qutb and the goal of re-establishing the Khalifa which will rule with Sharia.

In an August, 2002 review of Peter Bergen's Holy War Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden Parshotam Mehra states:

Bin Laden has two principal grouses against the USA. First, the very mention of the name, he admitted, provoked "disgust and revulsion." To start with, by aligning itself with the Saudi regime, Washington had committed "an act against Islam." He was determined to unseat the Saudis and, by implication, beat down the Americans.

That was not all. The USA was responsible for all those killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. It was against these acts of "aggression and injustice" that he had declared jihad. The end-goal was to drive Uncle Sam away from all Muslim lands.

Bin Laden was convinced that the end of the Cold War and the eclipse of the Soviet Union had made the USA "ever more haughty and arrogant." Not that this deterred him in the least. His answer to globalisation was the restoration of the Khalifa and the caliphate. Which, ominously, was to begin from Afghanistan with the swath of green eventually spreading all the way from Tunisia to Indonesia. [Emphasis added]

At any given time, the Khalifa may be chosen in three ways:

1. By selection. The Khalifa is selected by a group of the best, most Islamically knowledgeable people in the society (not by a general vote of everyone). This groups is called the Majlis-Ash-Shura (Arabic for "consultative council"). The members of the Majlis-ash-Shura are chosen from experts who are learned in Islam, and they in turn choose the Khalifa.

2. By nomination. The current Khalifa may nominate his successor, the next Khalifa (as Abu Bakr did with Umar). The people have to accept him just as in the first case.

3. By force. If the current Khalifa forces some one on the people to be the next Khalifa, but that person is righteous, the people must accept him as long as he remains righteous. Similarly, if there is no Khalifa (again, the situation today), it is permitted for someone to forcibly seize power and declare himself the Khalifa if he guarantees to abide by his responsibilities under Islam.(8)

It is worth pointing out that bin Laden has assured himself two of the legitimate avenues to Caliphate by establishing his own maglis al shura (Consultation Council) within Al-Qaeda, thereby insuring the council's choice to either be himself, or some one approved by him and/or the leadership of Al-Qaeda. But lest this peaceful plan should fail, there is always force.

It is part of Islamic tradition that the title of Khalifa may be attained by conquest if the incumbent is not fulfilling his duties -- or if there is no incumbent. Under shari'a law and hadith, the umma (the consultative assembly of the elders of Islam) is required to recognize as Khalifa anyone who is able to fulfill the duties of the position and demonstrates the sanction of Allah by mobilizing the Dar -al-Islam in successful jihad. Jihad, here, is interpreted broadly; a war of consolidation that united a substantial portion of the Dar-al- Islam under a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy would do it.

In other words, since 1924 the position of Caliph has been waiting for a Man on Horseback. Or, for you science-fiction fans out there, a Muad'Dib. The Ayatollah Khomeini could never quite make this nut; first, because he was not a plausible warlord, and second because he's part of the 10% Shi'a minority branch that disputes the Khalifal succession. The next Caliph, if there is one, will have to belong to the 90% Sunni majority.

Osama bin Laden has behaved precisely as though he intends to fill that role. And in doing so, he has frightened the crap out of the rulers of the Arab world. Because he's played his religious and propaganda cards very well in Islamic terms, barring the detail that he may well be dead and buried under rubble in an Afghan cave.

On 9/11, bin Laden took jihad to the symbolic heart of the West more effectively than any Islamic ruler has managed since the Siege of Vienna was broken in 1683. By doing so he caught Arab rulers ( especially the Saudis) in a neat theo-political trap. They have been encouraging hatred of Israel and the West, and hyping the jihadist mythology of fundamentalist Islam, as a way of diverting popular anger that might otherwise focus on their own corrupt and repressive regimes. But Bin Laden has trumped and beaten them at this game. He has acted out the Koranic duty of jihad in a way they never dared -- and in doing so, seized the religious high ground.

The sheikhs and ayatollahs now have a dilemma. If they support jihadism, they must either start a war against the West they know they cannot win or cede their own legitimacy to the Caliph-claimant who is leading the jihad. But if they come out against jihad, bin Laden or his successor can de-legitimitize them simply by pointing to the Koran. The possibility that the semi-mythical "Arab street" would revolt behind local Khomeini-equivalents hot to join al-Qaeda's jihad is quite real.(9)

But we need not rely on the words of authors, analysts and pundits concerning the claims of bin Laden's goal being al Khalifa. We can rely on the words of the jihadists themselves.

In Bin Laden's Sermon for the Feast of the Sacrifice published by MEMRI on March 5, 2003, the following statements are made by bin Laden himself:

Prayers and blessings of peace upon our Prophet Muhammad, who said:'I was sent with a sword in preparation for the Day of Judgment when God alone will be worshipped with none beside him. He assigned me a livelihood under the shadow of my spear and he assigned humiliation and lowliness to those who disobey my command. He who makes himself resemble a community of people, is one of them.'[8]He also said: 'Expel the idolaters from the Arabian peninsula.'

One of the most important positive results of the raids on New York and Washington was the revelation of the truth regarding the conflict between the Crusaders and the Muslims. [The raids] revealed the strength of the hatred which the Crusaders feel towards us, as the two raids peeled the lamb's skin off the back of the American wolf and revealed the hideous truth. The whole world awoke from its slumber, and the Muslims were alerted to the importance of the [Muslim] principle which states that positions of alliance or hostility may be taken [only] for the sake of Allah. The spirit of religious brotherhood among Muslims was likewise strengthened, which constitutes a great step forward along the road towards uniting Muslims under the banner of monotheism in order to establish the rightly-guided Caliphate, God willing.

This speech, in fact, is rife with reference to the "Nation of Islam" and to the previous Caliphates.

But bin Laden is not the only Islamist leader to bluntly state the intentions of Al-Qaeda to establish the Caliphate. An article on the modern day meaning of "jihad", written by the Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, who is leader of the Al-Muhajiroun movement, rejected the Al-Qaeda definition of jihad as calling for the "violent removal of 'impious regimes' in Muslim countries" along with the jihad against all that is Western, declaring this definition un-Islamic.

Sheikh Bakr states:

"The question of whether Jihad can be used to remove existing regimes is a relatively new issue which must be addressed. The Muslim Ummah has never before been in a position where we are divided into over 55 nations each with its own oppressive kufr [infidel] regime ruling above us. There is no doubt therefore that the vital issue for the Muslims today is to establish the Khilafah [caliphate]. Allah (be He praised) makes it clear in the Qur'an that there is no compulsion in the Deen ["religion", i.e. Islam] hence we do not fight the Kuffar [infidels] to become Muslims."

"There is also ample proof from the sayings and the actions of the Messenger Muhammad (may Allah pray for Him) that non-Muslims have sanctity for their lives unless they are at war with the Muslims either determined by the Khalifah (Caliph) in his foreign policy or ( as in today's situation) they are violating the sanctity of Muslim land, honor or life. Much advice has also been given by the Messenger Muhammad (may Allah pray for Him) on Jihad which makes it clear that this duty is pro-life as opposed to anti-life, such as not killing women and children, not killing the elderly or monks, not targeting the trees or animals, etc..."

"Hence, although foreign forces occupying Muslim land are legitimate targets and we are obliged to liberate Muslim land from such occupation and to co-operate with each other in the process, and can even target their embassies and military bases, there is no divine evidence for us to fight against Muslims who are part of the regimes in Muslim countries as a methodology to establish the Khilafah. Rather, we urge our Muslim brothers in Islamic Movements who are engaged in this violation of the Shari`ah to look at the evidences and follow that which is based on Yaqeen (indisputable legal knowledge) and may Allah (be He praised) guide us all to the best."

MEMRI summarizes:

Significantly, Sheikh Bakri argues that the well-known Islamic concepts of Dar Al-Islam versus Dar Al-Harb no longer apply. This means that the implicit obligation of Muslims to wage war on Dar Al- Harb ("The Abode of War," i.e. territory ruled by non-Muslims) is no longer applicable. Sheikh Bakri argues that the concept of Dar Al- Islam implies the existence of a Khilafa (Caliphate) and that because there is no Khilafa nowadays (since the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in March 1924), there is no Dar Al-Islam and, consequently, no Dar Al-Harb.

Sheikh Bakri's contentions bear the importance of the establishment of the Caliphate to legitimize the jihadis' efforts.

In an interview with Al-Hayat in January 2004, Nabil Sahrawi (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim Mustafa) who holds a leadership position in the Salafi Group for Da'wa and Fighting in Algeria, stated:

'The rulers of the Muslim lands today are a gang of apostates [and] criminals, the most evil creatures created on the face of the earth, whose crimes are known to all, and they are a paradigm of treachery, deceit, misleading, and repression. How many commitments have they given their people, only to then fill their graveyards and prisons with them? They have replaced Shari'a law, and they rule Muslims with the laws of Europe and America. They have shed blood and violated the religious prohibitions. They have wasted the property of the Muslims on forbidden things. All that interested them was their bellies and their enslavement to the West. They are not [protected] by any pact. Anyone who wants a lesson [on the results] of dialogue with the apostates, let them learn the lesson of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the lesson of the Islamic Front of Salvation in Algeria ? and so on.

"The Salafi Group for Da'wa and Fighting is fighting the regime in Algiers because of its unbelief and apostasy? Fighting the apostates takes precedence over fighting others from among the original infidels, and the punishment of the apostates is harsher than that [of the original infidels], both in this world and in the hereafter. Pacts must not be formed with these rulers; they must not be given security; there must be no reconciliation with them, and there must be no truce with them. We will accept from them either repentance or the sword?"

When asked of his group's connection with Al-Qaeda, Sahrawi offered the following:

Our connection to Al-Qa'ida and the other Jihad organizations in the world is based on two things:'

"First, the operation of the Salafi Group for Da'wa and Fighting in the realm of preaching and Jihad is an operation integrated with that of the other groups, because as noted in the [organization's] charter ? the Salafi Group for Da'wa and Fighting is a phased means aimed ultimately at establishing a group of Muslims ? the Caliphate ? and it sees this as a sacred goal that all Muslims must strive to attain?

"Second, one of our goals is also to educate the Muslims about the principle that loyalty to Islam and to the Sunna must take precedence over loyalty to all the other frameworks? The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim, even if their countries are distant from each other. Every Muslim is entitled to the support [of other Muslims]? We support those who support Allah, His Prophet, and the believers, and we act with hostility towards those who act with hostility towards Allah and His Prophet, even if he is from among the closest of the close."

In the 2001 trial concerning the indictments against top Al-Qaeda leadership, including Osama bin Laden, during the testimony of the state's witness Jamal Ahmed Al-Fadl, the following information was divulged about the intent and teachings of Al-Qaeda:

Testimony under direct examination from February 6, 2001:

Q. Were you present for any conversations where Usama Bin Laden stated what he was going to do after the Russians left Afghanistan?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us what Usama Bin Laden said he was going to do after the Russians left Afghanistan?

A. He thinking about making group.

Q. Can you explain to us anything else you recall about what he wanted this group to do?

A. To be ready for another step because in Afghanistan everything is over.

Q. And did he explain at that time what that other step was?

A. They say we have to make Khalifa.

Q. Can you explain to the jury what a khalifa is?

A. Khalifa mean we need one Muslim leader for the whole Muslim in the war.

Q. Continue with what else you recall Usama Bin Laden stated he wished to do after the Russians left Afghanistan.

A. He say also we want to change the Arab government because there's no Muslim government in the war, so we have to make Muslim government .

Testimony under cross-examination from February 13, 2001:

Q. Isn't it true, sir, that Jihad can only be in defense in the cause of Allah? I mean, there are other reasons; that's one of them?

A. Jihad is so many different roles. So one of the Jihad to make Jihad, being make the whole country Muslim.

Q. Is another of these reasons when led by a spritiual leader to accomplish these goals?

A. Khalifa.

Q. Now, you went to a camp in Khost, isn't that right?

A. Yes, Khost area.

Q. And there again, they talked to you, various people talked to you about religious issues, didn't they?

A. Yes, in Farouq camp.

Q. And one of the things they talked to you about was something I think you referred to as a khalifa, right?

A. Khalifa. Al khalifa, yes.

Q. And "khalifa" means that all of the Muslim world should be united into a single -- I'm going to use the word country, but it really means a single entity?

A. You're right.

Q. And you believed that, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. You believed, for example, that whatever country you were from, in your case, the Sudan, wasn't as important as the unity Muslims should have for one another?

A. I don't understand that.

Q. Well, Sudan is a nation, right?

A. Yes, it's country.

Q. Egypt is another nation?

A. Another country, yes.

Q. Somalia is another country?

A. Yes.

Q. But when you talk about khalifa, what you say is all Muslims should be joined together?

A. You're right, under one man.

Q. Under one man, a khalifa?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was one of the goals of al Qaeda, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was a goal you accepted?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. At some point the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan, were they not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was a tremendous victory for Muslims around the world?

A. Yes.

Q. But after that victory there were a number of men who for years had been fighting in Afghanistan and had no cause left to fight, isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Those were called the mujahideen?

A. Yes.

Q. And those people, those mujahideen, had been fighting for so long that that was the only thing they really knew how to do, wasn't it?

A. You're right.

Q. So it was at that time, at the end of the war in Afghanistan, that Bin Laden decided to start al Qaeda?

A. Before him, another people.

Q. But it was around the time the war ended in Afghanistan, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And he began that in part to work towards this khalifa, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you were one of the very first people involved with Bin Laden, weren't you?

A. Yes.

Q. So, for example, at one time Salim gave a speech in which he quoted from the Koran where it said there should be no other religions in our islands, do you remember that?

A. In Arab islands.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. In Arab islands: Yemen country, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Muscat, Jordan, Palestine, this is Arab islands.

Q. And he meant, did he not, that the khalifa should take those Arab countries and make sure that they were completely Muslim, Arab countries for the Muslims, right?

A. It's for Prophet Mohamed. He say Prophet Mohamed says they not allowed to let two religions in Arab islands.

In a rather low-profile CNN article in June, 2004, the results of a poll conducted with more than 15,000 Saudis were reviewed and the summary statement was:

Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric, but fewer than 5 percent thought it was a good idea for bin Laden to rule the Arabian Peninsula.

Indicating the still present effort to promote bin Laden as the modern-day Caliphate for the region.

[Steve Gardner]

Part X - The Nuclear Bomb of Islam

Written November, 2004.

Around May 29, 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a statement, in the form of a pamphlet which was entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam" in which he called on Muslims to "prepare as much force as possible" in their efforts to drive the enemies of God out of the Arabian peninsula. This is a review of the evidence of Al Qaeda's interest in obtaining nuclear material, and attempts, some of which may have been successful, to obtain nuclear materials for the purpose of creating bombs.



In the indictment filed against bin Laden and various al Qaeda members by the United States government on November 5, 1998, the following charges were included:

At various times from at least as early as 1992, the defendants USAMA BIN LADEN and MAMDOUH MAHMUD SALIM, and others known and unknown, made efforts to obtain the components of nuclear weapons;(1)

On or about May 29, 1998, the defendant USAMA BIN LADEN issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and the Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God";

During the direct examination of Jamal Ahmed Al-Fadl during the 2001 trial against Osama and the al-Qaeda members named in the 1998 indictment(2), Al-Fadl told of his involvement in an attempt to buy a cannister of enriched uranium. The series of contacts relayed in Fadl's involvement included the former Sudanese president Moqadem Salah Abdel al Mobruk. Fadl tells that eventually he met with a man named Basheer in Khartoum who told him he would provide documentation stating the quality and country of origin of the uranium. Basheer told him it would take $1,500,000 to purchase the material.

Al-Fadl provided Basheer's information to his contact, Abu Rida al Suri who gave him a paper with the needed information about the uranium. Suri told him to inform Basheer that they had an "electric machine" which would check the uranium, but that they first wanted to see the cylinder and have confirmation of its quality and country of origin. Later in the testimony Al-Fadl explains that the "electronic machine" had not arrived yet and was coming from Kenya.

Al-Fadl then tells of the second meeting with Basheer in which al Suri accompanied him. They were taken by jeep to a small town north of Khartoum called Bait al Mal and shown an approximately 2 to 3 foot long cylinder. Basheer provided them the documentation on the uranium which contained a lot number that matched an engraved number on the cylinder.

After this meeting Al-Fadl was instructed to take the document (which was in English) to one Abu Hajer. Al-Fadl testified the paper stated the uranium was from South Africa and contained a serial number and something about quality, but he could not translate the English.

Al-Fadl was then sent back to Basheer to tell him that they did, in fact, want to purchase the uranium but were waiting on the "electronic machine". It was after this communication with Basheer that Al-Fadl was paid $10,000 for his involvement and no longer participated. In testimony that was objected to as hear-say, Al-Fadl stated that he had heard the uranium was checked (assumedly with the machine) in Hilat Koko.

In the cross-examination of Al-Fadl on February 13, 2001, Al-Fadl was asked what the uranium was for. Al-Fadl responded:

I remember, yeah, Abu Jaffar al Tayar, he's Egyptian, and he say it's easy to kill more people with uranium.

Further in the examination he is asked about the machine they were waiting to arrive from Kenya:

Q. That was to see if this uranium was good enough to build a bomb to kill a whole lot of people, right?

A. Yes.

In the charges filed against Zacarias Moussaoui, the U.S. Government cited that:

At various times from at least as early as 1992, Usama Bin Laden, and others known and unknown, made efforts to obtain the components of nuclear weapons.

Bin Laden's "Nuclear Bomb of Islam" statement is referenced in these filings as well:

On or about May 29, 1998, Usama Bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "international Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and the Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."

In an article written on December 2, 2003, by Dr. Kalpana Chittaranjan for the India-based Observer Research Foundation, Osama bin Laden was quoted in a December 1998 interview with TIME magazine as responding to the question as to whether he had obtained nuclear weapons with:

If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so.

Dr. Chittaranjan goes on to reference an AFP report in November 2003 about a former Democratic Republic of Cong (DRC) soldier who testified in an investigation that a representative of Al Qaeda had purchased enriched uranium from the Congolese opposition in 2000.(5)

On October 7, 2001, a video of Osama bin Laden was released in which he referred to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.(6) This had not been the first time that the reference between Hiroshima and the U.S. had been made. In a Telegraph article written on October 15, 2001, it was reported that a CIA report in 2000 included a conversation between Al-Qaeda members in which one member stated taht bin Laden was planning "an Hiroshima" in America.(7) But Osama's reference Hiroshima and Nagasaki goes back as far as 1998 in an interview with ABC's John Miller shortly after the "Nuclear Bomb of Islam" statement had been issued.(8)

In a November 15, 2001 article by ABC News, it was reported that Northern Alliance troops had found detailed designs of nuclear weapons in houses in and around Kabul, Afghanistan. In addition, a reporter for the Times of London, on assignment with the troops in Afghanistan, had found partially burned plans on how to detonate plutonium for the purpose of creating a nuclear explosion. These documents were found in a building formerly used as a headquarters for al Qaeda.(9)

In February 2004 ABC's Daily Terrorism Report included a reference to an article in a pan-Arab newspaper stating al Qaeda, led by Osama, had purchased tactical nuclear weapons in 1998 from the Ukraine and had stored them in safe locations for possibly use.