Continued...

Part 3. Islam and Terrorism

Now, as we fill out the foundation of how we have arrived at this point with radical Islam let us take the next step. As any investigator will tell you, “follow the money” to understand the organization. The rise of radical Islam is no different, for with money comes influence. This does not mean that money is the only factor, but the money allows for the many of the actions, social programs and political influence that allow groups to gain support. Because of the importance of Saudi Arabia in Islam, we must look at how the Saudi Royal Family and funding came to be in radical Islam.



In the western area of what is now Saudi Arabia a group known as Wahhabi (follower of Mohammad bin Abd-al-Wahhab) formed in the mid-1700s. This group preached a conservative interpretation of Islam and gained a significant following. Mohammad bin Saud invited the group leader, Mohammad bin Abd-al-Wahhab, to come to Diriyah after he had been forced from Uyayna (Diriyah and Uyayna were tribal areas in Arabia).

In the final years of the 18th Century (1700s), bin Saud (actual name, bin= son of) entered into what became a long series of military campaigns to control the area then known as Arabia. The campaigns by the Family of Saud to fully control Arabia lasted well into the 1900s. By aligning himself with the Wahhab sect, bin Saud was able to gain increased control and influence in areas where Wahhabi beliefs had taken hold.

So what does this have to do with anything now you ask? The pact made between the Family Saud and the Wahhabi Sect of Islam still holds today. This is why Saudi Arabia maintains such a conservative form of Islam as its state religion. The Wahhabi version of Islam is well funded as part of the ongoing relationship between the Saudi Royal Family and the Wahhabi. It is the Wahhabi beliefs that drew Osama Bin Laden and which are the basis of his movement. This is a Sunni based movement, and the Wahhabi beliefs were instrumental in the development of the beliefs of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

We have the ideological ties between the more traditional views of the Wahhabi Sect (formed in the mid-1700s) and the push by the Muslim Brotherhood for Muslims to return to a purer form of Islam in the 1930s. Both groups are Sunni and thus allied. This does not mean that the Saudi Royal Family officially supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but recognize there are over 7,000 members of the Saudi Royal Family, with lots of money available to members to donate to their favorite charities.

As we proceed there is another group that we must bring into this discourse as its entry on the scene has been an important factor over the last 70 years. The Zionist Movement entered the scene in the Middle-East. Founded in the later part of the 1800s, the movement preached the return of Hebrews to the Holy Land. While the area was part of the Ottoman Turkish Empire at the time, it was possible for non-Muslims to live under an Islamic state as long as they paid the approximate 5% tax for protection to the caliphate.

While the Zionism as a movement started in the late 1800s, its success in getting large numbers of Jews to relocate to British Palestine from their homes in Europe and America was very limited. Not many successful Jews wanted to move from relative comfort and civilization in Europe to the desolate desert sandbox of Palestine. While there was an increase of Jewish settlement in British Palestine, the real increase did not occur until the rise of Nazi power in the 1930s.

The Zionist movement gained momentum as pressure mounted on Jews to flee Germany to avoid the ever increasing restrictions. While the movement gained momentum in the 1930s it was with the liberation of Europe and the defeat of Hitler’s Germany that the floodgates were opened. With Europe in ruin from the war and the concentration camps liberated, there were millions of displaced persons throughout the continent.

Jews liberated from the camps, with no homes left, found themselves in displaced persons camps run by aid organizations. Having survived the unthinkable horrors of Nazi persecution and the Final Solution only to find themselves in a displaced persons camp for the foreseeable future, some Jews saw immigration to Palestine as a new chance at life. Others saw the Zionist movement as the only way to prevent a repeat of the Holocaust.

The historian, Steven Ambrose has stated that the British, having fought the war and been victorious, gained only bankruptcy. This statement of the impact of the war on Britain combined with the independence movements throughout the colonial world put stress on the ability of the British to maintain the possessions it had controlled before the war. Unrest in India (Gahandi) and in its other colonies placed growing pressure on a financially strained England.

The inability of the British to control the illegal immigration of European Jews (mostly concentration camp survivors) to Palestine in the 1945-1948 period increased the Arab anger against both Jews and against the British. With little value added to the British Treasury and increased violence by both Jews wanting greater immigration and Arabs believing the British were not doing enough, England found itself in a no-win situation. In frustration, England decided to leave its unprofitable League of Nations protectorate and announced its departure in 1948.

The stage was now set for the next major event to shape the region. With the British withdrawal from Palestine, the Zionists in Palestine declared the creation of a new Jewish state, Israel. Jewish leaders of this new state approached the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Haj Amin Al-Hussaini) offering peaceful coexistence between Jews and Muslims. Al-Hussaini’s response was to order a jihad against the Jews and any Arab who supported them.

I would like to digress for a moment as I believe it is important to put Al-Hussaini’s rejection into perspective. The reader should remember that these events occur in a world quite different from our own. In 1948, much of the world lay in ruin. Many of the great cities of Europe are still in rubble from the destruction wreaked upon them by both sides during World War II. The Cold War has increased in intensity as the Berlin Airlift is now underway as the Soviets try to force the Allies out of Berlin. The world anxiously watches as the victorious allies begin the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials to judge the surviving high level Nazi leaders for crimes against humanity.

It is in the light of these circumstances that the Jews declared the formation of the state of Israel. But Al-Hussaini, the Grant Mufti of Jerusalem, is a strong Nazi supporter and the Arab world lines up behind his leadership in reference to the reaction to the new Jewish state. The Arab countries respond to Al-Hussaini call for jihad by providing their armies to engage what they considered Jewish invaders. The statement that the Grand Mufti was a strong Nazi supporter will meet with anger and denial by many, so rather than ask the reader to accept my conclusion, I present the following facts. These are by no means the only actions by Al-Hussaini that support my conclusion, but for the sake of brevity, I limit the facts presented in this paper:

• He (along with Arif Al-Arif) incited Arab rioting which resulted in the murder of Jews in Palestine during the Nabi Musa Celebration (4-5 April 1920).
  
• He was the guest of Adolf Hitler in Berlin, November, 1941.
  
• He recruited Muslim units from the area that is now Bosnia to fight with the German Army against the allies in World War II.
  

The fact that the Arab world and Arab leaders lined up behind a pro-Nazi in 1948, when the world was still living with the aftermath of Nazi actions in Europe was not the best decision ever made. While world guilt and sympathy over inaction before the war obviously played a role in recognition of Israel, it is hard to judge the impact of Nazi style anti-Jewish rhetoric concerning Jews in Palestine by Arab leaders. The fact that Al-Hussaini, as the acknowledged Palestinian movement leader, had actively supported Hitler’s Nazi Germany did not help recruit international support for the new pro-Palestinian movement.

With the withdrawal of British military from the area, open warfare commenced between Jews and Muslims in Palestine. In Israel, this became known as the 1948 War of Independence. As one of the first international crisis to be faced by the then infant United Nations, the organization engaged in diplomatic attempts to end hostilities between the groups. In response to the war, the United Nations formed the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) on 29 May 1948 (the first UN peacekeeping operation). It was the UNTSO military observers who mapped out on the ground who militarily controlled each area, de facto mapping the pre-1967 Israeli borders addressed in UN Resolution 181. With the end of the 1948 war, we have the declared borders of the new Jewish state of Israel. While the Arab government accepted the ceasefire, they did not accept the existence of Israel. Arab Muslims living within the new state of Israel were encouraged by the Arab nations to abandon their homes temporarily under the assumption that the Israeli state would not last long (one way or another). It was this understanding that put thousands of Arab families into exile from their homes. Most of these refugees remain in neighboring countries and often live in Palestinian camps. When you hear the term “Right of return” it is the right of these displaced Palestinians to return to their ancestral homes that is being addressed. We will return to this issue in a later chapter.

At this point, we have addressed the rise of Islam and its expansion to cover most of Spain around North Africa through Turkey and the Balkans to the outskirts of Vienna. This covers what a traditional Muslim would consider Muslim lands since they were taken from Muslim control. The logical reply from a non-Muslim would be that these lands were merely retaken after years (sometimes centuries) of Muslim occupation. This, however will not be accepted, as the traditional Muslim view is once Muslim always Muslim.

We have the Sunni vs. Shia split. The Shia belief in the 12th Imam as it applies to Iran. The Wahhabi influence in Saudi Arabia is brought into play with the fall of the Ottoman Turkish Empire which sets the stage for the geographic reorganization of the Arab world. Additionally, we have the migration of European Jews into Palestine in large numbers in the aftermath of Hitler’s Final Solution, leading to the creation of the state of Israel. On a side note, I have always found it interesting that the Arab Muslim world has such a fondness for the Nazi movement and Hitler, when in fact, had there been no Holocaust, it is arguable that there would never have been the mass migration of Jews that led to the establishment of Israel. Please excuse my divergence from our subject. We have now set the stage and identified the key players that will bring us into modern radical Islam.

In the next chapter we will move forward into the post World War II period and the continued evolution of radical Islam.
Part 4. Islam and Terrorism
If you ask most Arab Muslims (and Muslims in general, as you must remember that many Muslims are not Arab) what is their major issue with the United States, they will tell you that is the constant pro-Israeli, anti-Arab (read anti-Islam, outside the Arab world) policies. They will tell you this is because of Jewish or Zionist control of the American media or of the government. If you ask many Americans, they will tell you the same thing with slight modification, referencing the Israeli lobby or some other reason. Let us now examine this belief, but this time let’s try to do so without the propaganda that usually is thrown in.

As I address Israeli history and American involvement it is important for the reader to understand my personal position. I absolutely believe in the right of Israel to exist and believe that the United States should take those measures necessary to prevent the annihilation or extermination of the Israeli nation. Having said this, there are many things that have been done over the years by the Israeli government which I do not and will not support. As we address the existence of Israel and its volatile history, I will point out things that I believe are mistakes made by both the Israeli and the Arab sides.

Having successfully won its right to exist in 1948, Israel takes its place among its neighbors, all of whom strenuously object to its existence. Entire books have been written about the conflict between Arabs and Israelis, so in the short space available here I can only touch upon key points. It should be noted, however, throughout most of the Israeli history, especially during the period from 1948 to 1980, Israel's borders were under constant threat by hostile neighbors. It is only with Sadat's agreement to the Camp David Accords and the establishment of the multinational observer force in the Sinai that some stability starts to be achieved along Israel's borders.

After the 1948 war of Independence Israel was provided with the armistice line under UN sanction. Routine attacks across its borders against Israeli settlements often occured. Constant vows by Arab leaders to exterminate Israel and the Jews or to drive them back into the sea were routinely made. In 1952, Gamel Abdel Nasser overthrew the monarchy and became the leader of Egypt. The reader should note that at this time the Cold War is well underway and conflicts between communist and free world are breaking out (the Korean War started in July 1951 and continued through 1953). European powers such as England and France are facing contests throughout their colonial possessions as the independence and nationalist movements take hold around the world.

By 1955, Gamel Abdel Nasser has secured promises from the US and England to fund the project to build the Aswan Dam. However, in August, 1955, Nasser announces his intention to purchase arms from the Soviet bloc. With the Cold War in play this does not set well with either the British or the Americans, and both withdraw their offer to finance the Aswan project. Nasser next decides to nationalize the Suez Canal, which at that time was controlled and administered by the British. A series of negotiations ensue in an attempt to prevent violence. In addition, to controlling the Suez Canal Nasser had also blocked the Israeli passage of the Straits of Tiran, thereby preventing Israeli shipping from the port of Elat to the Red Sea.

When diplomatic efforts fail to undo these actions Israeli troops attacked in late October 1956. British and French troops joined in seizing the Suez Canal within about 10 days. With the Egyptian army pushed aside and unable to counter attack successfully Nasser turned to the United States and asked for its assistance in the UN on 1 November 1956. President Eisenhower through the State Department asked Nasser what his intention were if the canal was returned to Egyptian control. Eisenhower also asked Nasser to clarify whether shipping from all nations would be allowed access and use of the Suez Canal if it were under Egyptian control. Nasser replied, with his promise that all nations including Israel would be allowed use of the canal for shipping with equal right of passage for every nation. With this promise the Eisenhower administration began to pressure both England and France to withdraw their troops. The United States sponsored and pushed through UN resolution 997 demanding the return of the Suez Canal to Egyptian control. In fact, the Eisenhower administration threatened serious financial repercussions should France and England failed to withdraw. The reader should realize that this is also the period of the Marshall Plan, during which vast expenditures of American funds were being used to rebuild Europe. In addition, there was a veiled threat of US military intervention on the side of the Egyptians should the British French and Israelis not withdraw.

Some may argue that the Eisenhower administration did not do enough to resolve this crisis. However, the Suez Canal crisis occurred during the same period that the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 occurred. As such, there were numerous competing areas of concern for the administration at that time. Facing pressure from many countries around the world, the UN and American pressure to withdraw the British, French and Israelis to quietly withdraw their troops and returned control of the Suez to Egypt. Immediately after regaining control of the Suez, Nasser reneged on his promise and refused to allow Israeli shipping to use the Suez Canal. This action further chilled US relations with Arab countries. The reader should note that during this period, Gamel Abdel Nasser was the de facto leader of the Arab world and the actual leader of both Egypt and Syria.

After the Suez crisis Nasser again turned his attention to the Aswan Dam project. There was no way for Egypt to fund this massive project without outside assistance. By 1962 he had rejected US offers for funding and instead turned to the Soviet Union and loosely aligned himself with them. The reader is reminded that this is the period during which Soviet-American relations degenerated further, resulting in the Cuban missile crisis among other confrontations around the world. Egypt's budding friendship with the Soviet Union pulled it further from alliances with the United States that finally resulted in the Soviets building the Aswan Dam for Nasser and becoming his primary source of military hardware and military trainers. This Egyptian alliance with the Soviet Union, America's arch enemy at the time all but ended friendly relations between the US and Egypt and created increased tensions between the United States and the Arab world.

Between 1956 and 1967 Israel continued to experience the border conflicts and incidents with its Arab neighbors. The Egyptian alliance with the Soviet Union brought Soviet army advisors into the Arab world in large numbers (especially in Egypt and Syria). Along with its advisers many Arab officers attended Soviet military advanced training schools and large quantities of Soviet weaponry were provided to the Arabs. With the increase in Soviet support Nasser began to believe that the time had come for the Arab world to avenge its 1948 defeat and to drive the Israeli nation into the sea. Starting in the early months of 1967 he began to give ever more belligerent speeches with regard to the existence of a Jewish state. In April and May of 1967 the Arab armies began mobilizing along the borders of Israel.

Having endured frequent border incursions threatening its territory Israel understood that the Arab actions were not simply saber rattling but intended to resolve the Arab-Israeli question once and for all. While there is little question that the majority of the incidents which provoked hostility were in fact committed by the Arab side, it would be foolish for the reader not to understand that there were many Israelis who pushed the limits of the borders and caused some of the violent responses from Arab forces. There could be no question in anyone's mind who listened to Nasser's speeches during May of 1967. Who could conclude anything but that it was the Arab intention to destroy Israel.

Israeli military was ready and have gathered significant intelligence on the opposing Arab forces. Given the small size and the fact it was surrounded on all fronts by hostile Arab armies Israel chose to preemptively strike. The opening shots of the Six-Day War were from the Israeli Air Force taking out the vast majority of Arab air power on the ground. With the loss of the vast majority of their air support the Arab ground war was doomed to failure. The exceptional bravery and aggressive spirit of both the Israeli Air Force and the ground forces overwhelmed the Arab armies in Gaza and in the Sinai. In the first few days of the war Israel made significant advances in the Golan Heights but were short of their desired goals. As the battle started to go badly for the Arab forces, Nasser attempted to secure American intervention but was reportedly rebuffed by the Johnson Administration, who had not forgotten Nasser’s broken promise from 1956.

I believe it is important for Americans to be aware of an incident involving the ship, USS Liberty. I have no doubt some readers will object to my analysis however I believe the facts in this incident are clear. Any who question my analysis I would refer to a book written by the executive officer of the USS Liberty concerning the events of this tragic day. On June 8, 1967 the USS Liberty was approximately 29 miles northwest of the Egyptian town, El Arish. This places the Liberty well outside of the 12 mile limit and in international waters. It was a clear day with a moderate wind and the Liberty being an electronic surveillance vessel carried no deck guns nor any significant armament. In fact, 50 caliber machine guns were the heaviest weapons available to the ship's crew.

According to Israeli explanations the Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian warship thought to be shelling Israeli troops fighting in the area of El Arish. Those of you with any level of military training know that in order to lob shells 29 miles or more requires substantially more than a heavy machine gun. The Liberty was first attacked by the Israeli Air Force with repeated strafing runs. After the aircraft attacks Israeli patrol boats came out and engaged the Liberty in a second wave of attacks. The Israeli government claimed that their forces were unable to identify the Liberty as anything other than an Egyptian warship. Pictures taken by the ship's executive officer shortly before the attacks show the American flag flying almost full out clearly visible (official weather reports for the area are counter to the Israeli claim of no wind and a limp flag on the staff). In addition, the ship's captain ordered American flags hung from the side of the ship after the initial attack. The Israeli claims to have mistakenly attacked the ship are simply not credible by anyone reviewing the facts in an objective manner.

Many have stated that there is no reason for the Israelis to have deliberately attacked an American ship when it was the United States was providing the bulk of the logistical support to resupply the Israeli military during the conflict. The fact that the Israeli military dependent upon shipment of American military hardware and ammunition are considered valid reasons to believe they would not have attacked an American ship knowingly.

Continued...