Letters to the Editor, January 4, 2004

Aljazeerah Info Center needs your support

Send donations by check to: Al-Jazeerah Info Center, P.O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30722-0724, USA.

I was looking at your December 31, 2003 letters. Who says Canaanites were the original inhabitants of that strip that Israel occupies today?

First of all, they came from the North, originally. Second of all, they were tied to Babylon and later the vassals of Egypt until the Israelis conquered the land.

They had NO KINGDOM there but a bunch of little settlements all paying tribute to Egypt. The word Canaan means "servant."

As for Ghassan, the editor is slightly missplaced, according to Dr. Abdullah Mohammad Sindi (http://www.abbc.com/sindi/arab.htm#07-1): "As the Lakhmid Arab Kingdom was Christian so was its Arab neighbor to the west, the Kingdom of Ghassan, whose capital city was Damascus. This Syrian Ghassanid Kingdom was prominent in the 6th century and was an ally of the Byzantine Empire. "

I'm afraid you're not accurate on all five counts. First, Ismail Zayid, did not say that Cana'anites were the first to dwell in Palestine (go back to his December 31, 2003 letter). He was arguing that they were there before the Hebrew tribes invaded Palestine from the east. Actually, they occupied parts of what's today known as Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon 3,000 years ago. If you look at any encyclopedia, you'll know that they were Semites, which means that they were Arabs coming from the south, not from the north as you indicated.

Second, the relationship between Cana'anites and each of Babylon and Egypt was a natural one. These were the regional superpowers and all smaller entities in the region would have a relationship with them, just like the relationship between the superpower of today and smaller entities in various regions of the world.

You made a serious mistake in your second observation when you wrote the word Israelis. The Israelis never invaded Cana'an because they only appeared on Earth in 1948. I know that you meant the Israelites. But there is a whole world of difference between the two words. Israelis are Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, and people of other faiths or creeds who have the Israeli citizenship. They came to Palestine from all continents and many of them are converts, like descendants of Khazars, whose ancestors never lived in the Middle East. The Israelites were the descendants of Israel, Jacob, the son of Isaac and the grandson of Abraham. Israel of today does not represent ancient Israel and the Israelis of today are not necessarily the descendants of the ancient Israelites. Zionists wanted to confuse people by choosing the word Israel in order gain support from the average people who do not have access to these basic facts. But even if you used the word "Israelites," it would not be an accurate usage. This is because the people that Moses led out of Egypt and entered Palestine/Cana'an after his death were descendants of the Israelites but also had some coverts with them. It's impossible that in 500 years in Egypt, no Egyptians would believe in the same religion of the Israelites.

Third, your emphasis on that the Cana'anites had NO KINGDOM sounds like you are belittling them. Just think about people in other continents like Europe 3,000 years ago. Can you mention any kingdoms anywhere outside the Middle East? I would like to remind you of a story of the city-state Kingdom of Shekim, which is known today as Nablus. The Hebrew tribes could not control it by force. They used the trick of circumcision, which enabled them to kill the men and control the city. Go back to your Bible and you'll read that Shekim had a king, Abu Malik, which is an Arab common name used until this moment.

The Cana'anites were Semites Arabs. A better spelling for the root word "Canaan" would be Qana'an, which means "content," not the derogatory word that you used. It is a common Arabic word that is still in usage. The apostrophe represents a glottal Arabic sound that does not exist in English. That is why it is written with "aa" instead of just one "a." The glottal "Q" is used in classical standard Arabic, while the "K" is its slang counterpart. Many West Bank Palestinians today say "Kal" as the slang for the standard verb "Qal" which means to say. In Gaza, they say "Gal, " while in Yaffa and Haifa, they say "Aal."

For Ghassan, if you look at Encyclopedia Britannica, it gives you the following definition: "Ghassan: Arabian kingdom prominent as a Byzantine ally (symmachos) in the 6th century AD. From its strategic location in portions of modern Syria, Jordan, and Israel, it protected the spice trade route." Actually, Muslims it as an administrative entity, called it Damascus Wilayat (Province), and kept it until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire by the end of WWI.

The point I made was that the modern-day Palestinian people are the product of the intermarriage between all peoples who lived in Palestine for thousands of years, including descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As a result, they are the ones who are entitled to the homeland of their ancestors, not only on basis of their historical right and international law, but also on religious basis. As descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they are the ones who have been promised by God to live in that Holy Land until today and until the end of days. The Zionist attempts to dislodge them will fail not only because of their staunch resistance and support from peace-loving people all over the world, but also because Zionists are fighting against the will of God and they will never succeed.

In your mission for Al Jazeerah, you mention the U.S.-Iraqi conflict. In your opinion sir, do Iraqis have the chance of a better future since the disposal of Saddam or are they forever trapped in the nets of capitalist America????

I am a very loyal American and think my country is good and I think our intensions In Iraq and Afghanistan are honorable.... and those fighting their killer style warfare want us to fail... where am I going wrong here???

Editor: I want to make sure first of what you are asking me about. Are you basically asking about why are Iraqis fighting the US forces, after freeing them of Saddam? If this was your question, here is my brief answer. My book about the Gulf War is the detailed answer.

The US war on Iraq led to the invasion and the occupation of that country. During the war and following it, the Iraqi state was destroyed. Estimates of deaths and injuries are in tens of thousands. The Iraqis are not unique in resisting a foreign invader. The Palestinian people have been doing it for the last 36 years against the Israeli occupation, with their meager resources. The Vietnamese also resisted the US invasion and occupation of their country, so did the Koreans. The Chinese resisted the Japanese invasion and occupation of China. The Soviets, the French, and most Europeans resisted the German invasion and occupation of their countries during WWII. It happened in all centuries as far as you can go in history. No nation likes to be controlled by another. People like to live freely in their own country. Just think about what you would do if a foreign power invades the US, particularly as a loyal American. The Iraqi resistance are loyal to their country, too, not necessarily to Saddam.

Because of this, Al-Jazeerah promotes peaceful solutions to international conflicts. Wars lead to more wars and blood triggers blood. War is the failure of reason and lust for the other person's resources, whether they are human resources or raw materials.

The 2003 war on Iraq was the US counter bunch in reaction to the September 11, 2001 Al-Qaeda (not Iraqi) attacks, which were by turn in response to the US occupation of the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula. But why did the US go there. It did in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But why did Iraq invade Kuwait? It was, among other factors, because of its bad economic conditions after its 1980-1988 war with Iraq. What caused that war? The violation of the 1975 treaty, which gave Iran the right to sail in Shatt Al-Arab in return for stopping its support for the Kurdish rebellion. Why did the Kurds revolt and who helped them? They revolted to have their own independent state, including the oil-rich Kirkuk area. Britain, the US, and Israel helped them in order to weaken Iraq. Why do they want to weaken Iraq? First, oil companies in the three countries want to control oil production and marketing in the second oil-richest country in the world. Second, by weakening Iraq, Israel would have no strong Arab state that would check its ambitions to control the Middle East, from the Nile to the Euphrates. (More information about the last paragraph can be found in my book, on www.gulfwar1991.com )

This may be a strange question, however, my mother always told me: "Better ask than be ignorant" The question I want to put to you is: Do you know, know someone who knows, or have the possibility of knowing who ACTUALLY wrote the "Bible", (The Book of the Christians) the New and Old Testament"? I may hear somebody saying, read it! It's all there!- But that's exactly because I have read it many times over, that the question arose. And to me, It is less and less obvious, who really wrote all that "Books".

If you have an answer I would very much appreciate. You may wish to answer via "Letters" or directly to my e.mail only.

Finally, I want to congratulate you, for being able to keep up with such an open dialog, and by giving the opportunity to everyone to express their view points.


	Ecuadorians washing and playing in a stream over which passes an oil pipeline, an influence against which they are beginning to fight. (Photo by Nelson Campbell, Al-Jazeerah, 1/4/03).

From The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy - James Edwards, Oxford University Press, 1998:

"By comparison with the Islamic culture of the Mediterranean, the Christian lands of western and northern Europe were very backward. Here, in the wreckage of the Western Roman Empire, learning was protected in the monastic schools, but science and mathematics had fallen to an abysmally low level ... At first, the classics of Greek mathematics and astronomy were translated into Latin from Arabic translations of the Greek originals."

But elsewhere this author notes that much of the Greek technique and knowledge was, in fact, inherited from Babylon (broadly speaking), which appears to have taught at least (!) western humanity to write, count and calculate, a lesson first partially lost on Europeans, whose crude arithmetic (Roman at best) was useful for counting but not much else until Arabs reminded them of the Babylonian approach, whose decimal-like system was grasped, inherited and developed by Arabic mathematics and also, it appears (as noted by the author cited above), bequeathed to us our division of hours, angular degrees and minutes into sixtieths.

This is the Babylon which remains as a neighbor (if in ruins) of Baghdad, the symbolic center of a culture whose attack and denigration by those who may be perceived as its inferiors has been ongoing and well-documented from writings of the Mosaic tradition (Tanach, Torah, Bible) to daily pronouncements on "civilization" by what appear to be scarcely literate idiots.

I would differ with the author of the passage quoted above only in his saying that European science and mathematics "had fallen" to assert that they appear never to have arisen at that point. It is a stretch (at best) to call ancient Greek cultures "European" and in any case it appears that much in them was developed from or at least with neighbors to the south and east. The Romans, perhaps the first significantly organized Europeans, clearly had their strong points but science and mathematics seem not to have been among them.

Attached is a photo of an artifact of what might be considered as neo-Roman "civilization" passing over a stream, said to be polluted, a central feature of the life of the people shown in the picture.

The photo is of Ecuadorians washing and playing in a stream over which passes an oil pipeline, an influence against which they are beginning to fight.