October 29, 2003

Israel's enemies re-visit USS Liberty

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Periodically, an enemy of Israel surfaces and once again revives the ancient canard of an attack by Israel on the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War that Israel fought against the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon and enthusiastically supported by the former Soviet Union. These powers were resoundingly defeated, undoubtedly due to the good graces, of a higher being.

In any case, just this week, October 27, 2003, in the Washington Times, Captain Ward Boston, a former Navy attorney involved in the investigation of the incident suddenly had an epiphany wherein he reveals that he was told by President Lyndon Johnson (now, conveniently deceased) and former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara (also now conveniently deceased) to conclude in his investigation that the incident was an accident, despite “overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” Thirty-six years later for some obscure reason the Captain just signed an affidavit to that effect!

One cannot wonder why the sudden epiphany. Has yet another US government former official become the recipient of the well-known Saudi Arabian Golden Parachute Retirement Plan that also seems to have graciously fallen upon former Secretaries of State, Senators, Journalists, etc. etc.

Anticipating the recurrence of this gross anti-Israel lie, I kept within my Yahoo Web page and now publish here in www.israel-commentary.org, the correspondence below of A. Jay Cristol, Federal Judge that appeared in the New York Times of April 30, 2001.


As a follow-up to our recent communiqué about the USS Liberty, we present
some additional comments:

> From: A. Jay Cristol, Federal Judge, Southern District, Florida

To the Editor of the New York Times: (published April 30, 2001)

Re "Book Says Israel Intended 1967 Attack on U.S. Ship" (news article, April 23): James Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" indicates that the attack on the
United States intelligence ship Liberty by Israel in 1967 was intended.

I researched this matter for 13 years. I analyzed 10 official United States investigations of the incident by the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Navy, the President's Foreign Intelligence Board, the Department of Defense and the National Security Agency, plus five Congressional investigations. They all came to the same conclusion, as did three official Israeli investigations: The attack was a tragic mistake and there is no evidence that it was intentional.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 28, 2003

The Arab “Right of Return"


Is it a valid demand and how would it affect Middle-East peace?

Three years ago. President Clinton and Ehud Barak, then Prime Minister of Israel, made every effort to achieve final peace between Jews and Arabs. They offered the "Palestinians" 97 per cent of the "West Bank" and Gaza, the eastern part of Jerusalem as their capital, and $30 billion in refugee compensation. But Yasser Arafat did not accept this overly generous offer. He insisted on the "right of return," flooding Israel with as many as five million so-called "refugees." When this outrageous demand was not granted, he broke off negotiations and started his bloody Intifida, the war against Israel, which by now has killed about 2,000 people on both sides and has left many thousands more wounded, many of them crippled for life.

What are the facts?

Who are the so-called "refugees?" On the very day that Israel declared its independence, five Arab-states invaded the nascent Jewish state. In fiery broadcasts and confident of victory, their leaders urged the Arabs to flee the war zone, so as not to impede the invading armies. Once victory was achieved and after all the Jews had been killed or had fled, the Arabs could return, reclaim their property and loot that of the Jews.

Things didn’t t turn out that way. About 420,000 Arabs followed the call of their leaders and became refugees. About 200,000 accepted the promises of the Israeli authorities that they would not be harmed and that they would become citizens of the new state, with the same rights as the Jews. Hardly any of the original refugees are still alive. But those who claim to be their descendants (who astonishingly now number as many as five million) clamor to "return" to Israel. With the single exception of Jordan, none of their Arab brethren have allowed them to settle in their countries and to become citizens. They have confined them to squalid refugee camps, supported by UNWRA (a dependency of the U.N. and financed mostly by the USA).

Those refugee camps are seething hotbeds of hatred against Israel and are the sources for terrorists and suicide bombers. Is the Palestinian "refugee" problem unique? Migrations of populations are nothing new in world history, especially after major wars. About 15 million Germans were (often brutally) expelled from what became western Poland, from what used to be East Prussia and from the Sudetenland. Millions of Muslims and Hindus, following bloody battles, migrated to India and to what became Pakistan. Other major migrations following the World Wars were those of the French from Algeria, Armenians, Turks, Greeks, Cypriots, Kurds and others. It is only the "Palestinians" who insist on being "repatriated." But more to the point, Israel has absorbed over 600,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab countries and millions of others from all over the world. All of them are productive citizens of their new country.

Since the founding of Israel in 1948, the Arabs have waged unrelenting wars to defeat the Jewish state, but they have been unable to do so by military means. The destruction of Israel, however, remains a cornerstone of the PLO charter, which has never been rescinded. What the Arabs have failed to achieve by force of arms they are now determined to accomplish demographically, by flooding Israel with millions of "Palestinians."

The "right of return" is the one concession that Israel can never grant and can never accept. The world must not forget that Israel was founded for one purpose only, namely to be the home of the Jewish people. Even today, more than twenty per cent of the population of Israel are Arabs, almost all of them hostile and a potential fifth column. Even if only a fraction of those who claim the "right of return" were indeed to come to Israel, Arabs would swamp the country, and Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state.
According to the U.N., only those who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted in their home countries..." are considered "refugees." For instance, the Cubans who fled Castro are considered refugees, but their children and grandchildren living in Miami are not. Only the "Palestinians" have been granted special status by the U.N., by which all of their descendants, for generations to come, are considered "refugees."

The purpose of this special status is to assist in the destruction of Israel. Israel is prepared to pay huge amounts in (unwarranted) compensation to those "refugees." But under no circumstances will it ever or should it ever accept the "right of return." What that would accomplish in one stroke would be the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Israel will never allow that to happen and the world should not request it either. The problem has to be solved by settling the "refugees" in any or all of the 22 Arab countries. Peace will never come about as long as the Arabs insist on the "right of return"—a "right" that can never and will never be granted.

FLAME Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359 • San Francisco, CA 94159
Gerardo Joffe, President

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:27 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

October 26, 2003

Please excuse me Pres. Bush, but ...

Maybe someone can tell me how, after three Americans envoys were deliberately killed in the Gaza Strip by a pre-placed Palestinian Arab car bomb and, nevertheless:

• Bush waives PLO sanctions US President George W. Bush invoked a national security waiver on Wednesday to prevent sanctions from being levied on the PLO for a period of six months.

Under the Foreign Relations Art of 2003, PLO non-compliance with
signed peace accords and continued use of terrorism and violence would force the president to impose at least one of a menu of sanctions unless he invokes a waiver contained in the law.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:57 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

October 23, 2003

The Great Arab Refugee Scam

By Schmuel Katz, The International Jerusalem Post, October, 2003

The story of the Arabs who left the coastal areas of Palestine in the spring of 1948 encapsulates one of the great international frauds of the 20th century. The Arabs are the only declared "refugees" who became refugees by the initiative of their own leaders. The concoction of the monstrous charge that it was the Jews who had driven out the Arabs of Palestine was a strategic decision made by the leaders of the Arab League months after the Arabs' flight.

The Arab "refugees" were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders - always with the same reassurance - that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel. The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it.

Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country, in daily contact with all sides - and they did in fact write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight was not voluntary. In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes.

Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

Why did they leave? Monsignor GeorgeHakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Soda al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

The initiative for the flight was indeed no secret. One of the famous American newspapermen of the time, Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, explained the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight in his book New Star in the East, published in 1950: "Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea."

There is also the piquant report in the files of the British police at Haifa, of how the leaders of the Jewish community pleaded with the leaders of the Arab community not to leave Haifa, and how the Arabs refused. There is too, in the annals of the UN Security Council, a speech by Jamal Husseini heaping praise on the Arabs of Haifa for refusing to stay put and insisting adamantly on leaving their homes. The British police then kindly provided transport and helped the Haifa Arabs across the Lebanese and Transjordanian borders.

When, four months after the invasion, the prospect of those that fled returning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. "The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem."

The policy adopted inside the country was emphasized by the leaders of the invasion. The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, thundered: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." One of the Arabs who fled later succinctly summarized the story of the refugees in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

Later, after the fighting began, many Arab villagers who believed the false rumors of a massacre at the village of Deir Yassin "panicked and fled ignominiously before they were threatened by the progress of the war." So wrote the British general Sir John Glubb, who commanded the Transjordanian army. Throughout the war there were two incidents - at Ramie and Lod - in which a number of Arab civilians were driven out of their homes by Israeli soldiers. The total number of Arabs, who evacuated, even according to the British Mandate's statistics, could not have been more than 420,000.

This figure conforms roughly also to the figure published from Arab sources, and by the UN. The central, horribly cruel fact is that the Arab states - who had brought about their plight - denied them residence rights; and the idea was born that they should be left in camps and used as a weapon for Israel's destruction. "The return of the refugees," said president Nasser of Egypt years later, "will mean the end of Israel."

It was in the immediate aftermath of the war that the refugee scam was developed into an international operation. As soon as the UN Disaster Relief Organization started providing - food, shelter, clothing and medical attention to the Arabs who had fled Palestine, a mass of needy Arabs descended on the camps from all over the Arab states. The organization had no machinery for identification; so the arrivals simply signed the register as refugees and, received the free aid.
Already in December 1948, the director of the Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported he was feeding 750,000 "refugees." By July 1949 the UN reported a round million. The Red Cross International Committee joined the party. It pressed for the recognition of any destitute Arab in Palestine as a refugee. Thus about 100,000 were added to the list. To add a touch of mordant humor, the Red Cross authority wrote about the additional people that: "It would be senseless to force them to abandon their homes to be able to get food as refugees." So these people stayed at home, received their free services there, and were added to the rolls of the refugees
Thus - and by other more expectable means of humanistic falsification we have, in the third generation, a large amorphous mass of Arabs, all of them comfortably lumped together in official UN lists as Arab refugees, described as "victims of Israeli aggression" and demanding the right of "return."

While everybody in Israel has rejected the Arab demand for accepting the return of the "refugees," the government has not rejected the idea that if negotiations for a settlement take place the problem of the refugees will be discussed. Moreover, there has been talk of "compensation" by Israel. There have even been voices suggesting the return of a "symbolic few" of the refugees.

Israel must, from the outset and forever, unequivocally reject such ideas.
Once and for all Israel must remind whoever has to be reminded that the responsibility for the displaced Arabs lies wholly and absolutely on the shoulders of the Arab states. Their utterly unprovoked invasion of the territory of Israel in May 1948 was a crime. Its declared intent was a crime. Six thousand Israel citizens were killed in that war, and thousands of others were injured. It was the Arab states that called on the Arab population to evacuate, all in order to facilitate accomplishment of their evil purpose.

It is a chutzpa of historical dimensions and significance to ask Israel to even discuss giving an inch or paying a penny of the price of the refugee problem. And it is dangerous for any Israeli spokesman to even agree to take part in any discussion of the subject - at any forum or in any context whatsoever. Indeed, the Israeli government should long ago have declared - but even now it is not too late: "We shall not participate in any discussion of the so-called refugee problem. This is a problem the Arab nation must solve for itself in its own spacious territories."

The writer, a co-founder with Menachem Begin of the Herut Party and member of the first Knesset, is a biographer and essayist.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:54 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 21, 2003

Palestinian Version of Terror Control

Excerpted from editorial by Saul Singer
The International Jerusalem Post, October 17, 2003

It is by now well established that the Palestinian Authority - with all its men under arms and multiple security forces that efficiently quash dissent is not lifting a finger to prevent terrorism. But this is just the beginning. In the same breath that it condemns terrorism in English and Hebrew, the PA continues to encourage it with abandon in Arabic to the Palestinian people.

On September 21, Al-Ayam reported on a soccer tournament. No fewer than 13 PA officials, led by close Arafat adviser and media figure Saeb Erekat, used the event to deliver a powerful political message: We honor suicide bombers.

The event was given the sporty title, "The Shahids [Martyrs] Tournament, of the Path of the Palestinian National Struggle for Palestinian Institutions, 2003." Each of the 24 competing teams was named for another leader in the PA'S pantheon of terrorism, including:

· Yihye Ayash ("the Engineer"), Hamas's most prominent mastermind of suicide bombings
· Dalal Mughrabi, a woman terrorist who hijacked a bus killing 36 in 1978
· Raid Carmi, chief of Fatah's suicide bomber wing.

Saeb Erekat on behalf of Arafat presented the trophy, after the officials led the crowd in standing for a "moment of pride in memory of the spirit of the martyrs," the newspaper reported. At the same time, official PA television continues to broadcast the message that Israel - all of Israel - will be destroyed through the terrorist offensive that it continues to glorify. Last week, the PA began to re-broadcast a clip produced last October showing a beating heart, dripping with blood, which is suspended from a map of Israel. The evocative graphics are accompanied by the refrain: "Allah is Great/Oh, the young ones/Shake the earth, raise the stones/You will not be saved. Oh Zionist/From the volcano of my county's stones. You are the target of my eyes" (see Palestinian Media Watch, http://www.pmw.org.il, for full translations and video clips).

To call what the "moderate" Palestinian leadership is doing hypocrisy is to understate, since that term implies greater effort to hide the truth. In this case, the truth is broadcast through print media and airwaves, hidden only behind the thin barrier of the Arab language.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:15 PM | Comments (95) | TrackBack

October 19, 2003

Who are the Chaldeans?

The Detroit News, October 13, 2003

• Chaldeans are Iraqi Catholics, descendants of the original inhabitants of Mesopotamia. They trace their culture back to the ancient Sumerians, who built the first civilizations in the Fertile Crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers around 3500 B.C.

• The Chaldean empire ruled the Babylon dynasty, beginning around 600 BC. Ur of the Chaldees is recorded in the Hebrew Bible as the land where Abraham lived before beginning his journey to the promised land of the Jewish people.

• The Chaldeans were among the first Christians, converted by the apostle Thomas in the first century and retaining their faith even after Arab armies invaded the land that would one day be Iraq in the year 634 A.D. As recently as the early 20th century, many Europeans still referred to Iraq as Chaldea.

• Today, Chaldeans make up about 3 percent of Iraq's population. By the community's count, there are as many as 110,000 Chaldeans in Metro Detroit — the U.S. Census Bureau puts the figure at closer to 30,000 Many are descended from immigrants who came in early 20th century to open shops that catered to the early Ford factory workers.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:35 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

October 17, 2003

Are We Back to the Blind Hatred of Henry Ford I?

CAMERA Update: More Info on Ford Foundation's Funding of Hate

(Could there now be a Ford or Lincoln in your Future?)

From: Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

CAMERA Members have been requesting more details about the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic organizations funded by the Ford Foundation. The link below will take you to a website with more details.


If this URL does not work, go to the URL listed below and then click on "Ford Foundation Analysis" in the column on the right of the webpage.

Lee Green
Director, National Letter-Writing Group

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:20 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

October 16, 2003

The Pursuit of Happiness

By Rabbi Irwin Groner, Congregation Shaarey Zedek, Southfield, MI

(While searching through my file for something else, I ran across one of Rabbi Groner’s usual masterpieces. The season is a little off but the message is calendarless)

During the weeks between Pesach and Shavuot, we follow a time-honored Jewish practice of studying Pirke Avot, the Ethics of the Fathers, words of wisdom about life and morality, offered by the Sages of old. One of them, Ben Zoma, analyzed the qualities that comprise happiness. His definition speaks to modem people with as much cogency as it did to our forebears some two thousand years ago.

The first element that enters the equation is wealth. The Jewish Tradition is not naive or unrealistic. Poverty and happiness are not faithful companions. Millions of people in underprivileged countries around the world would define happiness as a loaf of bread, a bowl of rice, a thatched roof or secure employment.

The second in the series of Ben Zoma is power. No person can experience fulfillment if he has no influence over the lives of others, if his opinions are disregarded, his decisions rejected. The ability to exercise control over events is a capacity necessary for happiness

The third goal was wisdom. This is a uniquely Jewish understanding of happiness. From the Jewish point of view, a person devoid of culture and knowledge can achieve gratification of the senses, but he cannot know the fulfillment of the mind that is essential to human happiness.

And finally, Ben Zoma refers to honor. One who is the object of scorn and derision cannot be happy. We recognize the deep universal need to be respected, to win the deference of others, the approval of our group, the regard of our peers.

If he said nothing further, we would be in Ben Zoma's debt, for he has outlined the anatomy of happiness and established the fundamental conditions for its existence. He then directs us to a formula by which we can acquire happiness. He does so in a very few words which express profound ideas.

"Who is wealthy? He who is content with his portion, who rejoices in his lot and is grateful for it." Ben Zoma grasped the essential truth about the human heart: our needs are few, our wants without number. If we are tormented by limitless desires, we shall never have contentment. The path to fulfillment lies in controlling our wants and looking upon our blessings with gratitude and appreciation.

"Who is powerful?" The rabbis knew of great conquerors, but they didn't conceive of these tyrants as men of power because they saw how these Emperors were driven by ruthless ambition and consuming lust, self-destructive impulses. The rabbis instead turned the gaze inward, for they taught that true power is in self-mastery. "Who is the strong person? He who can conquer himself." Self-control and self-discipline are the true signs of strength. What the rabbis say to contemporary humanity is "Conquer your fears, your anger, and your despair." The art of self-control is the greatest and most enduring form of strength.

"Who is wise?" The rabbis were generally not people of, wealth and were often devoid of power, but wisdom was their forte, the central quest of their existence. But who is wise? One who has mastered the law, who has probed the mysteries of the universe? Ben Zoma's answer was different. "Who is wise? He who learns from everyone." The truly wise person has an unclosed mind, receptive to new ideas, capable of extracting from human experience a rich core of insight. Wisdom is the ability to respond to the stimulation of life. If we can listen with understanding to the words of children, to the insights of the aged, to the sayings of the common folk, we can acquire new perspectives on a sometimes too familiar world. To be truly educated means to be open to new challenges of thought all the time.

The last component in this formula of happiness should be noted. "Who is honored? He who honors others." If we can respond to another human being with respect, if we can see in him or her unique individuality stamped by that same Divine power that makes life incalculably precious; then we shall create a climate in which honor and respect will flourish and grow. This will make us worthy of honor.

Thus has Ben Zoma given us his guidelines for the acquisition of happiness. They are simply stated, but their implementation requires limitless patience, concern, and understanding. Ben Zoma not only told us what happiness is, he also told us what happiness is not. Happiness is not in a pill, a bottle, a distant land or in some contrived amusement. Happiness, like God's Law, is not far away in heaven, but in your heart. Seek the happiness that lies before you. May your search be crowned with success.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:08 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

October 14, 2003

Majority in Iraq say Ousting Saddam was well worth it.

By Jennifer Harper THE WASHINGTON TIMES, October, 2003

The war in Iraq has been worth the hardship, according to those who have lived through both. Despite continued violence and few basic amenities, 62 percent of Baghdad residents believe the ousting of Saddam Hussein justified "any hardships they might have personally suffered," according to a Gallup poll released on Sept. 24. Gallup went to the source, conducting face-to-face, 70-minute private interviews with more than 1,000 eager respondents in their homes in early September. The cooperation rate was more than 97 percent, Galiup said, categorizing the poll as "the first rigorous and scientifically conducted sampling of public sentiment in Iraq."

The numbers also revealed growing hope and confidence among Baghdad residents, though almost all felt their city had become more dangerous in recent months. While one in three says postwar Iraq is better off now, 67 percent believe their country will be far improved in five years. "American effort is only going to work if Iraqis buy into it," Gallup International poll director Richard Burkholder said. "That's why the good faith and optimism of the citizens are so important."

Thirty-six percent had favorable views of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, with 43 percent giving it a "middling" rating, according to the poll. In addition, 50 percent said the authority was doing a better job than it did two months ago. "CPA Administrator L. Paul Bremer is well thought of personally," the poll stated, noting that Mr. Bremer received a 47 percent favorable rating.

The new 25-member Iraqi Governing Council won approval: It was viewed positively by 61 percent of Baghdad's residents, with a quarter saying their impression was "very favorable." The good feelings fade, however, on a more global scale. Only 29 percent of those polled had a positive view of the United States, while 24 percent had a positive view of Britain, "which ruled Iraq as a mandate until the country was granted independence in 1932," the poll noted.

Though France vigorously opposed the Iraq war, it won more Iraqi admirers than the two liberators: 55 percent had a positive view of the French. Resentment of new authority may linger as well: 75 percent of the Baghdadis believe that policies and decisions made by their local governing council are "mostly determined" by the British and Americans.

Americans, meanwhile, have their own ideas about Iraq. A Pew Research survey also released on Sept. 24 found that 63 percent of Americans thought the use of military force in Iraq was the "right decision," while 62 percent said the effort was going "very well" or "fairly well." Fifty-one percent said Mr. Bush took the appropriate action at the right time, and 54 percent said the war helped the fight against terrorism. More than three-quarters — 79 percent — thought the Iraqis "are happy Saddam had been removed," though 47 percent said the Iraqis probably opposed American policies in their country.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:21 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

October 12, 2003

Muslim Military Chaplains

Pentagon Jihadis

By Daniel Pipes October, 2003

The news last week, that two U.S. military personnel who are Muslim, James Yee and Ahmad al-Halabi, had been detained on suspicion of aiding Al Qaida prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (with another three Muslim servicemen under watch) seemed to prompt much surprise. It should not have. It has been obvious for months that Islamists who despise the United States have penetrated American prisons, law enforcement and armed forces.

A milestone Wall Street Journal article in February established that imams who consider Osama bin Laden "a hero of Allah" dominate the Islamic chaplainry in the New York state prison system. I documented in March the case of FBI Special Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, an immigrant whose pattern of pro-Islamist behavior was overlooked and, instead, he was promoted! And at least six prior cases of Islamist servicemen have come to light:

• Ali Mohamed: An Egyptian immigrant who after his discharge from the U.S. Army went to work for Osama bin Laden. Mohamed pleaded guilty to helping plan the 1998 bombing surveillance of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi and now sits in prison serving his sentence.

• Semi Osman: An ethnic Lebanese immigrant and non-U.S. citizen who served in both the Army and the Naval Reserves. Osman was arrested in 2002 and accused of "material support for terrorists." He pleaded guilty to a weapons violation and served his sentence.

• Abdul Raheem Al Arshad Ali: An African-American convert to Islam and former Marine, he awaits trial in prison for allegedly supplying a semiautomatic handgun to Semi Osman.

• Jeffrey Leon Battle. An African-American convert and Army Reservist, Battle awaits trial in prison on charges of "enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America."

• John Alien Muhammad: An African-American convert and Army veteran, Muhammad is suspected of having thrown a grenade at a fellow soldier in 1991. He awaits trial in prison on charges of leading a 21-day shooting spree in the Washington, D.C area in 2002 that killed 10 and wounded three.

• Hasan Akbar: Another African-American convert, Akbar awaits trial in prison for two counts of premeditated murder and three charges of attempted murder following a March 2003 fragging incident against his fellow soldiers. The Akbar incident prompted Deanne Stillman of Slate magazine to conclude that "Islamists may be infiltrating the military in order to undermine it."

• That infiltration also has a mundane quality, as shown by the example of Nabil Elibiary. He's an Islamist who protests the "defaming" of bin Laden and defends polygamy — and who also led the holiday prayer service at an Air Force base in early 2003. The executive branch's insistence on "terrorism" being the enemy, rather than militant Islam, permits this Islamist penetration. And it continues. The Defense Department responded last week to the chaplain’s arrest by defending its hiring practices.

Only under external pressure, notably from Senators Chuck Schumer and Jon Kyl, did it agree to reassess them. Even then, the Pentagon insisted on reviewing the appointments of all 2,800 military chaplains — rather than the 12 Muslims among them. Political correctness gone amok! Which Christian or Jewish chaplains would be accused, as was their Muslim colleague last week, the Washington Times reports, of "sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage and failure to obey a general order"? By pretending not to see that the enemy emerges from one source, the authorities dilute their focus and render their review nearly meaningless and endangering security.

The U.S. government needs to use common sense and focus on militant Islam. It should consider such steps as:

• Breaking off contact with organizations (like the Islamic Society of North America and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Council) that place Islamists in government employment.
• Suspending currently employed Muslim personnel who got their jobs through those institutions until their loyalty can be confirmed.
• Finding anti-Islamist organizations to work with, such as the Islamic Supreme Council of America or Sunni Muslims and the American Muslim Congress for Shi'ites.
• Confirming that government-employed Muslims do, as many of them swore under oath, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." A mechanism is needed to identify employees with an Islamist outlook and expel them from government service.

Ironically, the Defense Department finds it easier to kill Islamists in Afghanistan than to exclude them from its own ranks. But only if the latter is carried out can Americans be confident their government is fully protecting them.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:44 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

October 07, 2003

Road Map Rubble

By Arnold Beichman, The Washington Times, September, 2003

"In a recent column, the wise and often erudite essayist William F. Buckley discussed the Israeli-Palestinian crisis on which he pronounced this verdict: "Mr. Bush's road map has evolved as a great fiasco." But I sought in vain an answer to an obvious question: Why has this road map and all other past "road maps" evolve as great fiascoes?

From Richard Nixon to Gerald, Ford, to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George Bush, father and son, there have been fiascoes galore - Lots of warm handshakes on the White House lawn, broad, triumphant smiles on all sides. Camp David agreements, the 1993 Oslo accords, all great TV ops for American presidents, Israeli prime ministers and the omnipresent, long-lived Yasser Arafat, a Selig with bombs, wearing his black-and-white kaffiyah and the biggest grin of all. And, promises, promises, pledges, guarantees, billions and billions of U.S. dollars.

Hamas and Hezbollah and their subsystems go right on with their suicide bombers, surviving Israeli counterattacks and so-called assassinations. Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas arrives on the scene and 100 days later he is an ex-prime minister.

What happened to those hopeful words uttered by President Bush after his meeting July 25, 2003 with Prime Minister Abbas? "We had a good meeting today about the way forward on the road map to Middle Eastern peace. Prime Minister Abbas and I share a common goal: Peace in the Holy Land between two free and secure states, Palestine and Israel[...] "Prime Minister Abbas committed to a complete end to violence and terrorism, and he recognized that terror against Israelis, wherever they might be is a dangerous obstacle to the achievement of a Palestinian State."

What Mr. Buckley doesn’t seem to understand is that no matter what Israel gives or pledges to give, there will be no peace now or in the foreseeable future because neither Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or, most visibly, Osama bin Laden will permit Israel, a democratic, modern state to exist. In other words, "peace negotiations" are not about giving up the Settlements or some other fictitious issue. They are about Israel's existence.

Does Mr. Buckley think Israel is against peace and the Arab states are for peace? Gulf War III now underway in Iraq is an Arab war to prevent another democracy from being created in the Middle East, and worst of all a Muslim democracy. This half-century war, nominally in the cause of a Palestinian state, has poisoned the political atmosphere in this country so we have a new and respectable kind of anti-Semitism using code words like "neo-cons," "Likudniks," or "ex-Trotskyites" as part of the vocabulary.

Otherwise intelligent American politicians like Howard Dean, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, nonchalantly announces in a Santa Fe coffeehouse: "It's not our place to take sides" in the Middle East conflict. We shouldn't take sides in a war between a democracy, the only real democracy in the Middle East, against a terrorist conspiracy? Later, Mr. Dean told The Washington Post that notwithstanding Israel's "special relationship with the United States," America must "take an evenhanded role," if it is to be "in the middle of the negotiations."

Is Israel to become Czechoslovakia 1938? Are we supposed to chuckle as we recall Abraham Lincoln's fable about the loving wife who, watching her husband locked in deadly embrace with a bear, shouted at both — "Go to it, husband; go to it, bear."

How about not taking sides in Europe when Adolf Hitler threatened Britain so as to have been "in the middle of the negotiations"? Should Franklin Roosevelt have been cheering both sides, "Go to it, Adolf; go to it, Winston"? Not taking sides in favor of the Soviet captive nations in Eastern Europe? Not taking sides in favor of Poland's Solidarity and Lech Walesa against the Kremlin? Not taking sides between democratic Tai wan and Communist China?

Of course, it is our place to take sides. America, historically, has always been a "take sides" country. In the interest of maintaining "an evenhanded role," should America not have taken sides in 1991 when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq? Should America have allowed Saddam Hussein to overrun Kuwait and then become master of the Middle East, including its oil riches?

On Sunday, June 7, 1981, at precisely 6:37 p.m., nine Israeli jets destroyed an almost-completed Iraqi 75-megawatt, $275 million nuclear reactor at Osirak 12 miles east of Baghdad. With that pre-emptive strike Israel helped make possible the U S -U.N. victory in 1991 over Saddam Hussein. Would the U S -U.N. coalition forces have dared go to war against a dictator flushed with weapons of mass destruction? Would the coalition 10 years later have risked mega deaths on behalf of the kingdom of Kuwait? Had Saddam used atomic weapons, would the Bush administration have dared use a retaliatory atomic response against the Iraqi people?

Had Israel adopted the Howard Dean policy of neutralism and allowed Osirak to come on stream, had Israel not taken sides against a dictator, the Middle East might have by now have been Armageddon minus the promised aftermath of 1,000 years of peace and plenty. Remember the 5,000 Kurds gassed to death by Saddam Hussein? And now that it is reported (the Guardian, Sept. 18) that Saudi Arabia is considering acquisition of nuclear weapons from Pakistan, and with global concern over Iran's suspect nuclear program the danger in the Middle East goes far beyond Israeli settlements in Gaza. Does Howard Dean understand this?

Howard Dean may be a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination (and it would serve the Democratic Party right if he did win the nomination) but his declamations in a Santa Fe coffee shop have demonstrated a shallowness, a thoughtlessness that might have qualified him for the Vermont governorship but which surely disqualifies him as a candidate for the American presidency.

Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, is a columnist for The Washington Times.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:04 PM | Comments (68) | TrackBack

October 05, 2003

An Honorary Trustee of the Cranbrook “Peace” Foundation - Imam Hassan Qazwini?

Who's Protecting the President?

By Steven C. Baker

FrontPageMagazine.com | May 6, 2003

Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. wrote that "The sound of a kiss is not so loud as that of cannon, but its echo lasts a great deal longer." If this is true, then there should be some serious political reverberations as a result of President Bush's decision to kiss Imam Hassan Qazwini after speaking to an Arab-American community in Dearborn, Michigan on Monday. This continues a well-noted trend of placing the President in the company of purported leaders of the Muslim community who do not share the President's moral clarity on terror.
This supposedly "moderate" Imam from the Detroit, Michigan-based Islamic Center of America (ICA) has some disturbing connections to radical Islamists that cannot be overlooked by a conservative President who has been entrusted by the American people to fight a war on global terrorism.

For starters, Imam Qazwini's Islamic Center once invited Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to be the keynote speaker at a memorial for its deceased founder Imam Mohamad Jawad Chirri. At the time, Arab American News described his address as "dynamic" and "always controversial," and reported that he urged the Muslim community "to become politically active...[and] as powerful as the Zionists."

According to an article in the Detroit Free Press in November 1998, Imam Qazwini downplayed the fact that Louis Farrakhan would be the keynote speaker at Imam Chirri's memorial: "...I always say there are some similarities between us and Mr. Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, and there are some differences. These differences are not so great that we would not give him the podium."

This raises a couple of questions. Can someone be a "moderate" Muslim if they associate with a figure such as Louis Farrakhan? And, what does it say about the nature of the Islamic Center of America if Louis Farrakhan is invited to be the keynote speaker at a memorial to honor its revered founder?

For those who do not recall, Louis Farrakhan is the man who once called Judaism a "gutter religion" and who has been banned - for security reasons -- from entering the United Kingdom since 1986. London's left wing journal The Observer has a profile of Louis Farrakhan that points out his "reliance on anti-Semitic imagery." A few examples: "Jews are 'bloodsuckers'"; "Hitler 'was a great man."

It also notes that "he talks of 'settling the score' with white people" and boasts proudly "that black street gangs are 'born warriors of true liberation.'"
Furthermore, in the lead up to the war that eventually liberated the people of Iraq, the Associated Press reported in October 2002 that Farrakhan believed Saddam Hussein was "making peace with his neighbors" and that the "[Bush] Administration is the greatest threat to world peace." He added, "Only Israel, the United States and Tony Blair...are willing to go along with an attack on Iraq."

Would Imam Qazwini consider these anti-war, anti-Bush viewpoints to be "similarities" or "differences" of opinion?

Imam Qazwini has other troublesome connections to radicals in the United States. He is a board member of the American Muslim Council and shares this position with some notable terror apologists.

For instance, the Conference Chair of AMC's upcoming Imam conference is Abdurahman Alamoudi. According to a January 2002 report by the Associated Press, Alamoudi is a supporter of Hamas and Hizbullah- two groups that are Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. In fact, both candidates Bush and Hillary Clinton returned his campaign donations citing statements he made.

Furthermore, during a Chicago fundraising event for the Islamic Association for Palestine on 29 December 1996, Alamoudi argued: "If we are outside this country, we can say oh, Allah, destroy America, but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. There is no way for Muslims to be violent in America, no way. We have other means to do it. You can be violent anywhere else but in America."

Other controversial AMC figures include:
Former Executive Director Eric Vickers. On 27 June 2002, Vickers appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" and stated that al-Qaeda was "involved in a resistance movement."

In a written response to the President's State of the Union address, Vickers wrote on 23 January 2003: "In invoking God to be with American soldiers in our apparently imminent war with Iraq, what the president did not say is that he is calling on God to kill innocent Iraqi children."

AMC's Treasurer Ali Khan. Khan has retained Hamas attorney Stanley Cohen to represent him in a lawsuit against Northwest airlines (racial profiling).

Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (formerly known as H. Rap Brown). The former president of the Executive Board of the AMC Board of Directors was Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (formerly known as H. Rap Brown). Brown was twice on the FBI's own Ten Most Wanted Fugitives List and is now serving a life sentence for the 2000 murder of Fulton County, Georgia, Sheriff's Deputy Ricky Kinchen.

Dr. Jamal Barzanji. Dr. Barzanji was involved with seven organizations that were raided by federal agents in connection with terrorist financing: the now-defunct SAAR Foundation; Amana Trust, the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Mar-Jac Investments, Mena Investments, and Reston Investments and SAFA Trust. The seven are part of what has come to be known as "The Wahhabi Lobby."

The American Muslim Council's strong anti-war, anti-Bush activism deserves additional mention due to the fact that AMC has been invited repeatedly to attend events at the White House and to meet with high-level Bush Administration officials.

AMC press releases "saluted" Mahdi Bray, the Executive Director of the MAS Freedom Foundation, for "leading the charge for the Muslim community's role" in the anti-war protests; and touted AMC Treasurer Ali Khan's plan to lead a caravan of anti-war protesters to the Capitol in January 2003. Moreover, AMC acted as a surrogate for International ANSWER - the radical left wing, anti-war organization headed by Ramsey Clark (a man who wants to impeach the President). On 15 January 2003 it forwarded via email one of ANSWER's anti-war messages. That text read in part: “There is no better way than to truly remember the spirit and legacy of Dr. King than to organize a bold, visible protest against war and racism in Washington DC on the anniversary of his birthday. We will not allow the war makers in the Bush administration and on Wall Street to turn Dr. King into a harmless icon, rather than an inspiration for struggle...”

AMC also has a long and consistent history of making common cause with terror groups in the United States that have no relation to Islam or Mideast issues.
AMC is an "active member" of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), a kind of legal aid for terrorists. Members include, the Puerto Rican FALN and Macheteros, Black Liberation Movement, Weather Underground, and persons on the FBI's Most Wanted list.

As an active member in the NCPPF, the American Muslim Council supports the cause of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who killed Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, and Leonard Peltier, who murdered FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams at Wounded Knee.

The former President and current Vice-President of the NCPPF is Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was arrested and indicted on 20 February 2003 and stands accused of supporting the Palestinian Islamic Jihad - a group that Attorney General John Ashcroft described as "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world."

It was remarkably easy to uncover Imam Qazwini's relationships to various radical entities. How then was the President put in a situation that permitted him to kiss a man who finds common cause with the likes of Louis Farrakhan, supporters of Hamas and Hizbullah, and in general someone who is not "with" the President politically?

(“How then” the Board of Trustees of the Cranbrook “Peace” Foundation has found common cause with Hassan Qazwini and made him an Honorary Trustee of its Board?)

Who is to be held accountable for this atrocious lapse in judgment?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:48 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

October 04, 2003

How Mohammed combined Judaism and Christianity and Invented Islam

By Dr. M. Kedar, Department of Arabic Studies, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Muhammad, the Prophet, hardly made any innovations when he established Islam. He used the hallowed personages, historic legends and sacred sites of Judaism, Christianity and even paganism, by Islamizing them. Thus, according to Islam, Abraham was the first Moslem and Jesus and St. John (the sons of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron) were prophets and guardians of the second heaven. Many Biblical legends, which were familiar to the pagan Arabs before the dawn of Islam, underwent an Islamic conversion and the Koran as well as the Hadith (the Islamic oral tradition), are replete with them.

The practice of Islamization was performed on places as well as persons: Mecca and the holy stone - al-Ka'bah - were holy sites of the pre-lslamic pagan Arabs. The Umayyads' Mosque in Damascus and the Great Mosque of Istanbul were built on the sites of Christian-Byzantine churches that were converted into mosques. These are good examples of Islamic treatment of sanctuaries of other faiths.

Jerusalem underwent the same process. At first, Muhammad attempted to convince the Jews near Medina to join his young community, and in order to persuade them he established the direction of prayer (kiblah) to be to the north, towards Jerusalem, like the Jews. But after he failed in this attempt, he fought the Jews, killed many of them and turned the kiblah southward, to Mecca. His abandonment of Jerusalem explains the fact that this city is not mentioned in the Koran even once.

After Palestine was occupied by the Moslems, its capital was in Ramlah, 30 miles to the west of Jerusalem, since Jerusalem meant nothing to them. Islam rediscovered Jerusalem 50 years after Muhammad's death. In 682 CE, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr rebelled against the Islamic rulers in Damascus, conquered Mecca and prevented pilgrims from reaching Mecca for the Hajj. Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad Caliph, needed an alternative site for the pilgrimage and settled on Jerusalem which was under his control.

In order to justify this choice, a verse from the Koran was chosen (sura 17, verse 1) which states (translation by Majid Fakhri): "Glory to Him who caused His servant to travel by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts we have blessed, in order to show him some of our signs. He is indeed the All-Hearing and All-Seeing.

The meaning ascribed to this verse is that "the furthest mosque" (al-masjid al-aqsa) is in Jerusalem and that Muhammad was conveyed there one night (although at that time the journey took three days by camel), on the back of al-Buraq, his magical horse with the head of a woman, wings of an eagle, the tail of a peacock, and whose hoofs reach to the horizon. He tethered the horse to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount and from there ascended to the seventh heaven together with the angel Gabriel.

On his way he met the prophets of other religions who are the guardians of heaven: Adam, Jesus, St. John, Joseph, Seth, Aaron, Moses and Abraham who accompanied him on his way to the seventh heaven, to Allah, and who accepted him as their master, (see the commentary of AI-Jalalayn on this verse). Thus Islam tries to gain legitimacy over other, older religions, by creating a scene in which the former prophets agree to Muhammad's mastery, thus making him Khatam al-Anbiya" ("the Seal of the Prophets").

The strange thing here is that this fantastic story contradicts a number of the tenets of Islam: How can a man of flesh and blood ascend to heaven? How can a mythical creature carry a mortal to a real destination? Questions such as these have caused orthodox Moslem thinkers to conclude that the whole story of the nocturnal journey was a dream of Muhammad's. Thus Islam tried to "go one better" than the Bible. Moses "only" went up to Mt. Sinai, in the middle of nowhere, and drew close to heaven, whereas Muhammad went all the way up to Allah, and from Jerusalem itself.

So why shouldn't we also believe that the al-Aqsa mosque is in Jerusalem? One good reason is that the people of Mecca, who knew Muhammad well, did not believed this story. Only Abu Bakr, the firs t Calif, believed him and thus was called "al-Siddiq" ("the believer"). The second reason is that Islamic tradition itself tells us that al-Aqsa mosque is near Mecca on the Arabian Peninsula. This was unequivocally stated in "Kitab al maghazi,” a book by the Moslem historian and geographer al-Waqidi (Oxford UP, 1966, vol. 3, pp. 958-9). According to al-Waqidi, there were two "masjeds" (places of prayer) in al-gi'ranah, a village between Mecca and Ta'if. One was the "the closer mosque" (al-masjid al-adana) and the other was "the further mosque" (al-masjid al-aqsa), and Muhammad would pray there when he was out of town.

This description by al-Waqidi was not “convenient” for the Islami propaganda of the 7th century. In order to establish a basis to the awareness of the “holiness” of Jerusalem in Islam, the Califs of the Ummayid Dynasty invented many “traditions” upholding the value of Jerusalem, which would justify pilgrimage to Jerusalem to the faithful Moslems. Thus was the al-kasjid al-aqsa “transported” to Jerusalem. It should be noted that Saladin also adopted the myth of al-Aqsa and those “traditions” in order to recruit and inflame the Moslem warriors against the Crusaders in the 12th Century. Another aim of the Islamization of Jerusalem was to undermine the legitimacy of the older religions, Judaism and Christianity that consider Jerusalem to be a holy city. Thus, Islam is presented as the only legitimate religion, taking the place of the other two because they had changed and distorted the Word of God, each in its turn. (About the alleged forgeries of the Holy Scriptures, made by Jews and Christians, see the third chapter of: M. J. Kister, "haddith U 'an bani isra'll wa-laharaja", IDS 2 (1972), pp. 215-239. Kister quotes dozens of Islamic sources).

Though Judaism and Christianity can exist side by side in Jerusalem, Islam regards both of them as a betrayal of Allah and his teachings, and has done and will do all in its power to expel both of them from the city. It is interesting to note that this expulsion is retroactive: The Islamic announcers of the Palestinian radio stations keep claiming that the Jews never had a temple on the Temple mount and certainly not two temples. Where, according to them, did Jesus preach? Arafat, himself a secular person (ask the Hamas), is doing today exactly what the Califs of the Umayyad dynasty did: he is recruiting the holiness of Jerusalem to serve his political ends. He must not give control of Jerusalem over to the Jews since according to Islam they are impure and the wrath of Allah is upon them (al-maghdhoub 'alayhim, Koran, sura. 1, verse 7, see al-Jalalayn and other commentaries; Note that verse numbers may differ slightly in different editions of the Koran). The Jews are the sons of monkeys and pigs (s. 5, v. 60). (For the idea that Jews are related to pigs and monkeys see, for example, Musnad al-lmam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, (Bey rut 1969) vol. 3, p. 241. See also pages 348, 395, 397, 421, and vol. 6, p. 135.)

The Jews are those who distorted the holy writings that were revealed to them (s. 2, v. 73, s. 3, v. 72) and denied God's signs (s. 3, v. 63). Since they violated the covenant with their God (s. 4, v. 154), God cursed them (s. 5, v. 16) and forever they are the inheritors of hell (s. 3, v. 112). So how can Arafat abandon Jerusalem to the Jews?

The Palestinian media these days is full of messages of Jihad calling to broaden the national-political war between Israel and the Palestinians into a religious-Islamic war between the Jews and the Moslems. READ THEIR LIPS: for them Christianity is as good as Judaism, since both of them lost their right to rule over Jerusalem. Only Islam, Din al-Haqq ("the Religion of Truth") has this right, and forever (shaykh 'Ikrima Sabri, the mufti of Jerusalem, in Friday's khutbah 4 weeks ago, Sawt falastin - the PA official radio). Since the holiness of Jerusalem to Islam always was and still is no more than a politically motivated holiness, Arafat is putting his political head on the block should he give it up.

Must the whole world bow down to myths concocted by Islam, long after Jerusalem is, and has been, the true center of Judaism and Christianity? Should UN forces be sent to the Middle East just because Arafat recycles the Umayyads' political problems or even Muhammad's dreams about Jerusalem?

Dr. M. Kedar Dept. of Arabic Bar-llan University 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:52 PM | Comments (0)

October 01, 2003

Yasser Arafat’s eulogy of Egyptian Gamal Abdel Nasser

Chairman Arafat on the 33rd Anniversary of the Death of Egyptian President
Gamal Nasser: 'The Warrior-President is With Us in Self-Sacrifice in Battle …

(For those of you that have some question as to where Arab and Islamic nationalism is going, below is the speech of Yasser Arafat extolling the memory of Gamal Nasser, late “President” of Egypt whose claim to fame was nationalizing the Suez Canal from the British and the French and ending foreign colonialism in Egypt. Unfortunately, Nasser invited in another colonial power - the Soviet Union and became its client state. He quickly became totally indebted to the USSR for millions of dollars of armament that proved to be his undoing in the Six Day War with Israel. In the meantime, the Egyptian people continue to live in abject poverty, like the rest of the Arab world, dreaming of some sort of military conquest against the West who they blame for centuries of their own self-induced deprivation.)

Special Dispatch - Palestinian Authority/Egypt October 2, 2003

On September 28, 2003, Wafa, the Palestinian press agency, published a speech made by PA Chairman Yasser Arafat (1) marking the 33rd anniversary of the death of Egyptian president Gamal Abd Al-Nasser. The following are excerpts from the speech:

"The deceased Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, as an Egyptian, pan-Arab, and international commander, leader, and pioneer - it is not easy for me to write about the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser on the anniversary of his death, because he is not a memory but the soul of the Arab nation, which does not and will never die, and because he is the soul of the Palestinian resistance, about which he said, 'The Palestinian resistance came into being in order to live and to triumph.'

"The Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, through his spirit, courage and creative thought, and through the dream of the greater Arab homeland, is not a memory, nor is he yesterday's cause. He is the present, today's cause, the cause of the shining Arab tomorrow, to which the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser devoted his whole life and died a martyr, as a pan-Arab nationalist and Egyptian patriot and as a Palestinian resistance fighter on the soil of struggle and confrontation against colonialism, both old and new; against the usurpation of Palestine and its colonization; and against division and fragmentation.

He is glory and dignity. The cause of the Warrior-President Gamal Abd-Al Nasser and his message and struggle is the cause of each and every Arab from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf, whether he be a ruler or an ordinary citizen, because the principles of Abd Al-Nasser are the principles on whose basis our Arab nation is rising up and taking its place in the sun."

"The Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser devoted his life to the glory of the Arab nation and its unity and dignity, and to expelling the forces of colonialism from all regions of the Arab homeland. It is for the sake of wounded Palestine that this young Egyptian officer rose up from besiegement in Faluja(2) in Palestine to besiege and drive out the forces of colonialism from the land of Egypt, the throbbing heart of the Arab homeland. [It is Abd Al-Nasser who proclaimed], 'Colonialism should now pick up its walking staff and leave,' 'from now on, there is no place for colonialists, occupiers, and invaders,' and 'this land is Arab, and no flag but that of the Arab nation shall ever fly above it.'

“ The Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser is alive in his nation and in Arab minds, and in the Arab hands that carry his message about Arab liberation, unity and progress. They will never abandon his principles and never lay down the banner that president Abd Al-Nasser raised - a banner that is a lighthouse shedding a bright light for the whole [Arab] nation.

As for Palestine, Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, as both warrior and president, is its great martyr. He is the soldier, the self-sacrificing fighter, and the resistance fighter [who was] besieged in Faluja, who refused to surrender and showed steadfastness and resistance and carried Palestine in his heart and conscience and thought for all his life. He refused to accept [the idea of] the disappearance and nonexistence of Palestine. He deserves credit for reviving the Palestinian national entity after the catastrophe of 1948, when he decided to establish the Palestinian Legislative Council in the Gaza Strip so it would be the seed for the future Palestine, for which Gamal Abd Al-Nasser was making preparations in Egypt."

"The Palestinian people have not forgotten and shall never forget that the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser is the martyr of Palestine who ensured the establishment of the PLO to lead the Palestinian people in its war of liberation and reclaiming of the occupied Palestinian territory, and to establish the independent state of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, and for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland and territory.

"And now the Palestinian people stand proudly in its war of national liberation from Palestinian occupation and from colonization by settlement. I say to you with confidence that the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser is with us in the trenches, with us under siege, with us in self-sacrifice [in battle]. [He is with us] with his thought and his manliness, creative spirit, and stature that neither bow nor retreat, no matter how difficult the struggle and how great the sacrifices."

The Arab Nation... Defeating the Forces of Hegemony and Colonialism

"If we can persevere and sacrifice as the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser persevered and sacrificed - for life has no value without homeland, without liberty, and without national dignity. From the heart of this brutal war against your people in Palestine, I call on all of you to raise your ambitions and spirit under the banner of the principles and values and struggle of the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, because the Arab nation has no path - in its history, culture, and holy places - other than that of dignity, liberation, unity, and defeating the forces of hegemony and colonialism, for the Arab nation is strong and glorious and fully deserving of a free, honorable life.

"We therefore have no path other than that of steadfastness and sacrifice for the sake of the homeland, the [Arab] nation, and the future. We salute the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, the lantern shining before the nation and its [future] generations. The warrior Gamal Abd Al-Nasser - the president, the commander, the leader, the pioneer - is alive in our midst and in our [future] generations. He has not died and shall never die. Peace and God's mercy and blessings be upon you." ##

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent,
non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle
East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070 Fax: (202) 955-9077
E-Mail: memri@memri.org, www.memri.org

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:49 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack