Afghan Fundamentalism: The Role of the U.S., Russia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

Afghan Fundamentalism: The Role of the U.S., Russia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia David Storobin, Esq. - 12/12/2004 Victor Boot was a graduate of Military Institute for Foreign Languages in Moscow, a known school for Russian intelligence. He was the son of the son-in-law of foreign Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, who initiated the Russian policy of secretly assisting Islamic terrorists. In 1997, Boot arrived in the United Arab Emirates for the first time. From UAE, it was easier for Boot to funnel Russian weaponry to Afghanistan. In June 2001 - less than three months before September 11 - Pakistani intelligence described the man as the lifeline of Taliban. [1]

The Taliban government was originally sponsored by Benazir Bhutto's regime in Pakistan, who at the time chose to join forces with fundamentalist opposition. However, as the power of Islamist radicals in the Pakistani government waned and a new government took over, Afghani fundamentalists broke free and were no longer controlled by Islamabad authorities.[2]

Russia quickly stepped in to help the radicals in Kabul. Victor Boot first landed in Taliban controlled territory on August 6, 1995 - just as the Taliban was about to be routed. His plane was supposed to fly weapons to the anti-Taliban government in Kabul, but instead landed in Taliban-controlled Kandahar. Almost immediately, Taliban's fortunes turned. "By August the [Taliban] group was broke and desperate. Yet suddenly they were rolling in cash and confidence. On Sept. 27 the Taliban marched into Kabul," reported Newsweek on October 13, 1997. The source of Boot's weaponry, according to Russia's Komsomolskaya Pravda, was Transdnestria, a Slavic region of Moldova that won de facto independence from Moldova with Russian support. [3]

In January 2001, just as he was heading out of the White House, Bill Clinton did a favor to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. United Nations forced the United Arab Emirates to check the cargo going to Afghanistan. Clinton stepped and allowed the UAE shipment to reach the Taliban without inspection, despite warnings from Britain's MI6. [4] Why was UAE, a country where Wahhabism is followed by many of the country's leaders, interested in sending shipments to Taliban without inspection and why did Russia get involved on behalf of UAE and the Taliban? We don't know . . . but neither did Bill Clinton.

Conventional wisdom suggests that Afghan fundamentalists were sponsored by Americans during the 1980's, while the Soviet Union battled them. Conventional wisdom is wrong. The January 2001 cargo transport is a perfect illustration of what was happening in Afghanistan for decades - Russians knowingly funded fundamentalists, while Americans were clueless, trusting everyone, knowing nothing. According to multiple reports, after the Soviet invasion, it took the CIA several years - years! - to get a few spies to Afghanistan who actually spoke any of the local languages. Instead of relying on its own, Washington received information from the British, Israelis, Pakistanis, Saudis and others who had personal interests and often were not inclined to tell the truth.

American incompetence and negligence gave root of conspiracies, many of which are believed even by reasonable people, that Americans purposely funded and trained Islamists. The actions of the CIA have been twisted out of shape beyond recognition, with every wild claim imaginable being made against American intelligence services. In reality, U.S. spies were left without support, often without as much as fake identification. The 1970's Frank Church Commission imposed rules upon agents that made it next to impossible to effectively collect human intelligence. As CIA Agent Robert Baer wrote in "See No Evil," Presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, saw CIA not as a means of collecting information, but rather as a collection of "Jacks-of-all-trade" who were sent on missions to distribute food, promote civil rights, and alike. While these may be laudable goals, intelligence agents were not paid for such missions. They are spies, not social workers. And so, while others were spying in order to both protect themselves and harm their enemies, America was sleeping and waiting for 9-11.

Soviet, meanwhile, used their vast KGB empire to influence the world. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia used FSB, the post-communist equivalent of the KGB, to promote its interests. For several generations, Moscow saw fundamentalists as a potential tool in its battle against the West. Kremlin realized that it was not strong enough to take over the West just yet, and saw the Islamists' goal of World Disorder as useful to prevent Western World Order.

Moscow sponsored and probably even created the socialist Tudeh (Masses) party in Iran, which supported the Iranian Revolution by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The party leader even wrote a book claiming that Ali, the first Imam of Shi'ism, was the real founder of socialism. [5]

A decade later, as the Soviet Union was falling apart, KGB sponsored the Islamic Renaissance Party in the Muslim regions of the former Soviet Union. The IRP has been a source of fundamentalist inspiration for Islamic people who knew little about their religion (due to the Communist policy of rigged atheism), and thus were easily brainwashed.

Likewise in Afghanistan, many of the so-called Islamist fundamentalists were sponsored by the Soviet Union. At times, USSR even hired Islamists to attack their own to provoke anti-Afghan feelings in the Soviet Union, thus allowing the Red Army to stay in Afghanistan with support of the Soviet people. Former KGB officer Vasily Mitrokhin described "Soviet-trained Afghan guerrilla units posed as CIA-supported, anti-Soviet mujahidin rebels to create confusion and flush out genuine rebels."

Two-thirds of the conflicts between Afghan guerrilla factions were caused by KGB provocations. [6] Former KGB officer Oleg Kalugin also admitted on BBC that more Islamists were trained by the KGB than the CIA. Among the Soviet-trained Islamists was Murtaza Bhutto, the brother of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who aligned herself with Taliban-like Pakistanis when she was at the head of the Islamabad government. [7]

Among other former Communists who joined the Taliban were: - Turan Abdurrahman who went from the Maoist Phalq faction to being the Supreme Commander of Taliban military by 1996; - The founder of Hizb i-Islami (Islamic Party of Afghanistan), Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, acted as a provocateur for the Soviet Union. In the past, he spent four years as a member of the Communist Party; - Shahnawaz Tanai, and several other generals organizing the air force, air defence (Muhammad Gilani), artillery (Shah Sawar), communications units, military intelligence, and security services (Muhammad Akbar); - Pro-Kremlin Parcham movement leader Babrak Karmal. [8]

On April 27, 1978, Communists belonging to the People's Democratic Party of Aghanistan overthrew the government. The new government tried to create a "workers' paradise" virtually overnight, through brutalization and destruction of the opposition. In Kabul alone, 12,000 people were killed within just a few months. Thousands of families fled to Pakistan and Iran. [9] Farmers, property owners, intellectuals and all others threatened by the new Communist regimes began to resist. Among the anti-Communist opposition were Islamists who acted in concert with local tribes.

Meanwhile, Pravda and other Soviet media began referring to Afghanistan as a fellow socialist country that must be defended from the onslaught of capitalism. Under the Brezhnev Doctrine, established by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in 1968, "When forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but a common problem and concern of all socialist countries." [10] As such, in March 1979, Moscow sent 500 advisors and massive military aid to Kabul.

By that time, Afghan socialists had already turned on each other with President Nur Mohammed Taraki and Hafizullah Amin allegedly trying to kill each other, despite their alliance just a few months earlier.

In the Fall of the same year, Soviets began amassing forces in southern USSR. Around the same time, Taraki died under still-unknown circumstances with claims flying against Hafizullah Amin. A while later, the Kabul Times published a special issue on November 7 - anniversary of the Russian Revolution - celebrating the USSR and declaring the Afghan coup to be a "continuation of the Great October Revolution" (Prior to the Communist Revolution, Tsarist Russia used a different calendar. Thus, the day of the revolution was November 7 under the common calendar, but October 26 under the old Russian one. As a result, Soviets celebrated Revolution Day on November 7, but the revolution itself was called the "October Revolution."). Claiming to be part of the "Great October Revolution" was seen in Moscow as a sign of acceptance of the Brezhnev doctrine, as well as a request for help from the Red Army. [11]

And yet, Amin refused to come under Russia's domination and turned to Pakistan and the United States for help. It was never his intention to invite the Soviet military into Afghanitan. Moscow feared Karmal's treachery and extremism, and when he tried to turn turn towards Washington, the Brezhnev administration decided to invade on December 24, 1979. [12] Russians quickly overran Amin's militias and killed him, installing Babrak Karmal as President. Karmal belonged to the rival Parcham faction within the Afghan Communist movement, whereas Amin and Taraki were part of the Khalq grouping. Karmal's support came from the urban population and he was less extreme than Amin and Taraki. He tried to end the brutality in Afghanistan, but was not particularly successful. [13]

The Soviet invasion led to several unwanted consequences. For one, Middle Eastern radicals and young men who were simply blood-thirsty flooded Afghanistan. Among the thousands of mujahideen who went on a Jihad to Afghanistan was a Palestinian by the name of Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, the leader of Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK, Office of Order or the Afghan Bureau). Azzam was an influential member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a teacher of Osama bin Ladin.

At the time, the Reagan administration was focused almost exclusively on the Soviet Union, and anyone opposing communists was seen as an ally. Much of this was due to spectacular levels of ignorance in the White House and the Department of State, as well as the various intelligence agencies. Americans simply did not know who they were dealing with, in large part because U.S. intelligence agencies did not train many of their agents to speak local languages - and often did not even bother sending spies into hotspots.

Forced to rely on information provided by allies such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Washington often received information that was not just inaccurate, but was nothing short of an outright lie. The Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, was particularly intertwined with MAK, a precursor to al-Qaida. [14] Yet, they were the ones on feeding information to Washington, which also decided to outsource much of the logistics to the Pakistani intelligence. [15] And so, on March 10, 1982 Ronald Reagan declared March 21 to be the official Afghanistan Day, calling the mujahideen "freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability." [16] That the words "mujahideen" and "jihad" come from the same root would almost definitely come as a surprise to the President and most of his men (Arab words usually have roots that consist of three consonants: both jihad and mujaheedin has a root of "j-h-d"). Indeed, it was not freedom they were seeking, but Islamic World Order through Jihad. It would not be true to suggest that the United States did not who they were helping. The Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. administrations understood that they were dealing with religious Islamists who used the rhetoric of Jihad. Yet, they believed that fundamentalists can be contained and did not understand that many mujahideen were not looking merely to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviet Union, but to take over the world and impose their brand of militant Islam on all nations.

The United States, with help and encouragement from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, began funneling money to Arab "freedom fighters." During the course of the 10-year war, the CIA invested US$2.1 billion to help the anti-Soviet fighters. When the war ended, Americans and their Saudi allies agreed to continue pumping $500 million a year each, with the money often directed to the sources preferred by the government in Riyadh. [17]

One of the sects receiving large amounts of aid was the Deobandi movement. The movement originated during the 19th century in North Indian town of Deoband in response to British colonization. It argues that the reason Islamic societies have fallen behind the West in all spheres of endeavor is because they have been seduced by the amoral and material accoutrements of Westernization, and have deviated from the original pristine teachings of the Prophet. The movement had begun as an anti-colonialist enterprise. While it did want to "purify" Islam by returning to the practices of the 7th century, it was not particularly militant. In fact, Deobandis had originated out of the moderate Hanafi Islam. The followers of the movement did not necessarily sought war against the West. Many Pakistanis, including Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, are Deobandi and President Musharraf was actually born in the town of Deoband. [18]

In Afghanistan much of the money going to this group came through Saudi Arabia. Wahhabis saw Deobandis as cousins and believed that they could put the movement in line with Wahhabism by paying for everything from weapons to text books. American money, intended to fight Communism, instead went to making Afghans into Wahhabis. Riyadh did not begin at the advent of the Soviet invasion. Indeed, it has been the policy of the country to export Wahhabist Islam around the world. In the United States, for ex., some have estimated that up to 80% of mosques receive at least some funding (openly and secretly) from Saudis and their affiliates.

In the 1980's, Prince Turki, who was the head of Saudi intelligence at the time, recruited bin Ladin as an organizer of Arab mujaheedin. While Osama did invest some of his personal fortune in the enterprise, much of the money came from Washington though Riyadh. [19]

Another person receiving money from the American taxpayer was KGB provocateur Gulbuddin Hekmatyar - who was the single largest beneficiary of foreign aid during the Afghan war, despite working for the Soviets. [20] A lot of the money given to mujaheedin to fight the USSR was plundered, as evidence by the mansions of the ISI officers and Afghan resistance leaders. Weaponry provided by the U.S. government made its way to the bazaars of Pakistan, and was often used to protect opium traders. [21]

Afghanistan was a particularly fertile soil for fundamentalists. Even before Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood and other Arab radicals swarmed Afghanistan, it had been influenced by Southeast Asian fundamentalists. The most important Islamist extremist was Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi, the founder of Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami (Party of Islam) and its militant affiliate, al-Badr. In fact, Mawdudi may be regarded as the single most important fundamentalist of the 20th century.

Born in 1903, Mawdudi claimed Arab heritage and Prophet Muhammad as his ancestor. Such claims may or may not be true, and it is possible that he was making them to establish greater credibility with Muslims. From an early age, he published books and articles about the conflict between Islam and the external world. In his view, nationalism, pluralism and feminism were Western imperial tools to undermine Islam - and these ideas must be fought both intellectually and militarily. He proposed not only to purge Islamic countries of all foreign influence, but also to wage jihad until all humanity came under the rule of fundamentalist Islam. [22]

It was Mawdudi who popularized the concepts of Hakimiyyat Allah (rule of God) as an Islamic concept in conflict with democracy, the rule of man. He, too, was instrumental in promoting the belief in Nizam al-Islami (Islamic World Order). Neither Hakimiyyat Allah nor Nizam al-Islami are traditional Muslim concepts. In fact, they were absent from Islamic texts prior to the 20th century. Yet, by the 1970's, many fundamentalists were convinced that these are the ideas upon which Islam is based.

Mawdudi wrote over 120 books and pamphlets, and gave over 1,000 speeches. One of the people greatly influenced by him was Sayyid Qutb, the man who went on to further radicalize the Muslim Brotherhood and much of the rest of the fundamentalist movement. Just as important, Mawdudi's books, pamphlets and speeches breathed life into Islamist extremism in Southeast Asia, despite the region's traditional tolerance and non-violence. Thus, when Wahhabis, Muslim Brethen and other extremists arrived in Afghanistan, they reached an audience ready to absorb the teachings of preachers of hate. [23]

Certainly, Mawdudi did not influence all Muslims in the region. In fact, most reject him and his followers. Yet, it is not necessary for every single person to be an extremist to destroy a society and give rise to mass terror. The hundreds of thousands of people who embraced Mawdudi's teachings were plenty for the next generation of terrorist-recruiters.

Saudi Wahhabis, in particular, were successful beyond their wildest dreams and their success was made that much easier after Russians invaded and Americans provided the money. By the late 1980's, Afghan Deobandis were nearly indistinguishable from Wahhabis. Most people, including much of the media, confuse the two sects. Others assume that differences are not theological, but rather ethnic -- Wahhabis are Arabs and Deobandis are Asians. That is almost accurate, as the only significant difference that still exists is the Wahhabis belief in the Hanbali Legal Code, while Deobandis in the Hanafi Legal Code. No other major difference disagreements exist and most other differences are cultural.

By late 1980's, Afghanistan was ripe for fundamentalism. It was only a matter of time until Taliban and al-Qaida took over.

1. Antero Leitzinger, Global Politician, November 1, 2004, The Roots of Islamic Terrorism: How Communists Helped Fundamentalists." Available online at: http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=171

5. Amir Taheri, "Rise of Khomeinism and the Last of the 'Ten Little Indians'" Originally published in Gulf News on February 12, 2004. Cited Online on December 9, Available at: http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/1911

7. Antero Leitzinger, Global Politician, November 1, 2004, The Roots of Islamic Terrorism: How Communists Helped Fundamentalists." Available online at: http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=171

8. Antero Leitzinger, Global Politician, November 1, 2004, The Roots of Islamic Terrorism: How Communists Helped Fundamentalists." Available online at: http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=171

9. Robert Silvers and Barbara Epstein, "Striking Terror" (A Collection of Essays). Essay: Pankaj Mishra, "The Making of Afghanistan," Page 72.

10. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. Cited online on December 1, 2004 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brezhnev_Doctrine

11. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. Cited online on December 1, 2004 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan

12. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. Cited online on December 1, 2004 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafizullah_Amin; Also Robert Silvers and Barbara Epstein, p. 78-79.

14. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. Cited online on December 1, 2004 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maktab_al-Khadamat

16. University of Texas Library. Cited on December 3, 2004 at: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1982/31082c.htm

17. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. Cited online on December 1, 2004 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan

18. Global Security Web Site. Cited Online on December 2, 2004 at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-deobandi.htm

22. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. Cited online on December 1, 2004 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawdudi

David Storobin is a New York lawyer who received Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Rutgers University School of Law. His Master's Thesis (M.A. - Comparative Politics) deals with Extremist Movements in the Middle East and the historical causes for the rise of fundamentalism. Mr. Storobin's book "The Root Cause: The Rise of Fundamentalist Islam and its Threat to the World" will be published in 2005. editor@globalpolitician.com

He was the son of the son-in-law of foreign Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, who initiated the Russian policy of secretly assisting Islamic terrorists.

****************************That sets off warning bells and fits with this************************

It’s difficult to imagine they are so blatantly antiAmerican!

See this :

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left

And a review:

**********************************

By	Kat Bakhu (Albuquerque, NM United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)

I had long wondered why people on the Left had the propensity to speak more positively about people who would slit their throats than they do about their own country, which affords them more freedom and opportunity than anywhere else. David Horowitz has answered that question thoroughly and convincingly in his Unholy Alliance. Where I felt bewildered and confused, I now feel crystal clear. Unholy Alliance is such a great book.

It begins with the leftist movements at the beginning of the 20th Century, and works its way up to the present day, exploring the anti-American attitude of these movements in detail. Horowitz shows that the enemies of the US back then are largely the same group today, operating under the same misperceptions, making the same mistakes, and pursuing the same impossible utopia.

Individual chapters are included on the Patriot Act (I was persuaded that it is a GOOD thing); the democratic flip-flop on Iraq once G.W. Bush implemented what they agreed with Clinton needed to be done; the driving components of the current anti-war movement; as well as chapters on individual personalities who are major spokespeople of the Left. Horowitz covers a lot of ground, and he covers it concisely and clearly. Unholy Alliance is richly informative without ever being boring or plodding.

This book is so illuminating that I simply cannot do justice to it here. I love people who reason so clearly that they help me get my own reasoning clear. Horowitz is just that type of person! In the terrain of mindless clichés (no-blood-for-oil, etc.), he is a breath of real fresh air.

More in the archives....elsewhere:

Nazi Influence on the Middle East During WWII

*****************EXCERPT*********************

By David Storobin
Global Politician | Wednesday, January 05, 2005

“Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'”
- Former Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini in his post-WWII memoirs. [1]

"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures."
- Adolf Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) in his Nuremburg Trials testimony. [2]

The end of World War I brought an end to the Ottoman colonization of Palestine. Towards the end of the war, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration supporting the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people . . . .” The original reaction of the Arabs was mixed. While many Arabs opposed the Zionists, Emir Faisal – who was the son of former Mecca ruler Sherif Hussein and later King of Iraq – signed in 1919 a declaration in support of the Balfour Declaration, even supporting all necessary measures “...to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.” [3]

But peace between Arab and Jew would not last.

On April 4, 1920, Haj Amin al-Husseini organized thousands of Arabs to attack Jews in Jerusalem. Arab police either stayed away or joined the rioters. The pogrom continued on April 5. By the time order was restored by a Ze’ev Jabotinsky-led Jewish militia, 5 Jews were killed and 211 injured. At least two Jewish girls were raped. Al-Husseini was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, but after a few months of hiding in Transjordan (now Jordan) was pardoned by Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the High Commissioner of Palestine. [4]

A year later, on May 1, 1921, al-Husseini organized another round of pogroms. On that day, Zionists clashed with Communists during the May Day parade. Communists were quickly dispersed, but Haj Amin al-Husseini made sure not to miss the opportunity and quickly summoned his forces. When fighting ended on May 6, at least 13 Jews were murdered. While the British colonial powers admitted that Arabs instigated the violence, they decided not to press charges against al-Husseini because they felt he was provoked by Zionists who demanded establishment of the Jewish state. [5]

The 1921 riots came shortly after al-Husseini was appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the British – in violation of election results. [6]

The two primary Arab families in Jerusalem were the Husseinis and the Nashashibis. When Great Britain conquered Jerusalem, a member of the al-Husseini clan was mayor of Jerusalem, but was subsequently removed by the colonial government with a member of the Nashashibi family appointed in his place. In March 1921, the Mufti of Jerusalem – a Husseini – died. The High Commissioner of the colony considered it desirable to balance the Nashashibi mayor with a Husseini mufti, with Haj Amin al-Husseini being his preferred candidate for the position. [7]

The electoral college nominated three candidates for the position of the Mufti. Under the long-established law, the colonial power was to choose among the top three vote-getters. However, the preferred candidate of the Brits, Haj Amin al-Husseini, placed fourth, receiving only about 7% of the vote. To the local Islamic leaders (outside the Husseini clan), the young man’s lack of religious preparation and knowledge made him an unacceptable candidate to be the top religious leader in Jerusalem. All of the top three candidates were Nashashibi-sponsored, while the Husseini clan focused its energies on promoting Haj Amin. The British intervened and forced the most popular candidate, Sheikh Husam al-Din, to withdraw, thus pushing al-Husseini into third place. The young man without any religious training suddenly became the most powerful Islamic cleric in Jerusalem. [8]

A few months later, in December of 1921, the British administration established a Supreme Muslim Council with full control over the Waqf (religious trusts) and the Shariah (Muslim religious courts). Haj Amin al-Husseini was appointed President of the body. Within a year, the man who organized multiple massacres, became the leader of all the most important bodies in the colony: religious (as a Mufti), legal (Shariah) and financial (Waqf). A 1937 Royal Commission report noted al-Husseini had “no legal limitation to his power.” [9]

Controlling a spectacular sum of money and the right to appoint Palestinian Islamic preachers, al-Husseini built a “political machine” that brought the religious and political establishment under his domination. Through them, he was able to arouse religious fanaticism against Jews and the West. His preachers urged their flock to “go out and murder the Jewish infidel in the name of the holy Koran,” constantly declaring that “he who kills a Jew is assured of a place in the next world.” [10]

Mufti hated Jews for the same reasons as Hasan al-Banna in Egypt. Jews, especially the arriving Zionist immigrants, brought a modern, Western/European way of life, a direct opposite of what the fundamentalists wanted. Just as Banna, Husseini felt personally threatened by Western culture. “The Jews have changed the life of Palestine in such a way that it must inevitably lead to the destruction of our race . . . . The Jewish girls who run around in shorts demoralize our youth by their mere presence.” [11]

The year 1922 brought the worst possible news to al-Husseini. The League of Nations recognized the land west of the Jordan river as the “Jewish National Home.” The British White Paper of 1922, divided Palestine with 77% to the east of the Jordan river given to Arabs, while the 23% to the west left for the Jewish people. Shortly thereafter, the League of Nations confirmed the division in its mandate system, urging Great Britain, as the Mandatory power, to “facilitate Jewish immigration,” as well as “close settlement of Jews on the land.” The League of Nations even mandated that no “territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power,” thus rejecting any Arab claims to what has since become known as Israel, West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, the Arab people are never even mentioned in the Mandate. [12]

Worse yet, al-Husseini did not even get the right to govern eastern Palestine, by then known as Transjordan. When the Hashemi clan lost control of Mecca and the rest of the Arabian peninsula, the colonial powers decided that the Hashemites deserved a “consolation prize.”

Sherif Hussein’s two sons were thus appointed Kings. Faisal became the King of Iraq, while Abdullah the ruler of Transjordan. The Hashemi clan originally fled from the Arabian peninsula to Cyprus, but then settled in Transjordan, leading the fight against the British. Making Abdullah the King of Transjordan satisfied the Hashemites after the embarrassing loss Mecca. [13]

But as far as al-Husseini was concerned, it wasn’t bad enough that he didn’t get a state, but his worst enemies in the Arab world – the Hashemites – were now ruling two countries (Transjordan and Iraq), while Zionists had their goal legitimized by the League of Nations. The Kings of Iraq and Transjordan – despite seeing their father backstabbed by the English – were moderates, friendly to the West and accepting of the Jewish state in the Middle East. As the world was split into fascist and democratic camps in the 1930’s and 1940’s, al-Husseini and Hassan al-Banna found themselves on the opposite side of the Hashemites.

The Mufti, who supported establishment of Greater Syria in what is now Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, West Bank and Gaza, decided to focus his efforts on taking over Palestine and Transjordan, while undermining the British and the Hashemites in Iraq. Years later, UK’s Colonial Secretary Ormsby-Gore would report to the House of Lords: “The Mufti . . . is playing his own dynastic game, and that game undoubtedly is to become not merely the sovereign of Palestine, not merely to be crowned or uncrowned King of Palestine, but first head of Palestine, then Palestine and Transjordan combined, and then the whole of Syria, and, of course, in that position to be regarded as the leader of the Sunni world . . . . He is a man of quite unlimited political ambition. He was a Turkish Staff Officer (during World War I) – and incidentally a Turk who knew him thought he was the blackest-hearted man in the Middle East.” [14]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.