|
Say (O Muhammad (peace be upon him)) "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allâh (Alone), and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allâh. Then, if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims"
Once more, the world’s attention is drawn towards the bloody conflict in Palestine.
The international community has been enraged by the unprecedented aggression
against the people, cities, villages, and infrastructure of Palestinians by
Israel. The attacks against Israeli people in Jerusalem and other cities have
also brought a series of condemnations from a broad spectrum of people worldwide.
Amid the roaring sound of tanks, bombs, F-16’s, Apaches, and bulldozers rise
the sound of women, children, and elderly crying out for protection, safety
and relief. From within the skeletons of death, the flow of blood, and the flesh
of the killed, rise the voice for peace and an end to the bloodbath. The value
of life on Israeli and Palestinian sides seems to be, paradoxically, indispensable
and worthless at the same time. With the same motive to protect one’s life,
there goes a move to end the life of the other.
The Balfour Declaration |
|
The Impact of International Politics on the ConflictThe historical background of the conflict is necessary to understand the complexity of the conflict. However, it is not sufficient in itself. It is important to answer a very basic question: “What were the British motives to offer the Jews a homeland in the land of Palestine?” Was it really the keen interest of the British in the Jewish people's quest for a homeland? Was it really the deep harmony between the European Christian majority and the Jewish minority? I don’t think that Jewish scholars would accept such a simplistic explanation. After all, the events in Europe before and during the world wars proved how much concern the Europeans, including Britain have for the Jewish people. Historical evidences are abundant in lieu of the fact that Britain was pursuing its own national interest, when it decided to create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. For Britain in particular, and Europe in general, the question of the East was one of the most critical issues for centuries. The Eastern question simply stated is the existence of an extremely powerful state, the Ottomans, driven and motivated by a powerful Islamic Ideology. The 1st world war provided an opportunity to the victorious European Allies to end the Eastern question, and to disintegrate the once powerful and large Ottoman Islamic State. But the question remained, with historical evidence, that the Eastern question could resurge and pose a threat one more time to the European continent. The national interest of Britain and its European allies was (and still is) to guard against the return of the question of the East. The British historian Bernard Lewis stated that “Europe will not allow the return of the (Ottoman) army that once besieged Vienna in 1653”. Britain and Europe have learned that colonisation and occupation of Islamic lands in the East cannot last forever. Also, the end of colonisation and occupation of Islamic lands will always lead to the resurgence of new power that may pose a threat to the European security. The crusader and Mogul wars are enough of en evidence for that fact. The British solution to this dilemma was to create a conflict zone in which the Arabs and the Jews are the main parties to the conflict. A conflict that has enough dimensions and depths that can only get more complex every time some one tries to resolve it! A conflict that will consume the life and blood of both Arabs and Jews, instead of Europeans. A conflict that will consume the emotions, resources, and aspirations of all the people involved. A conflict that will create an environment of terror and counter terror that subjugates both parties to international condemnation and at sometimes punishment. A conflict that will keep all parties involved under continuous scrutiny. Indeed, the Muslim/Arab – Jewish conflict was (and continues to be) brilliantly used to promote Arab secular nationalism in replacement of Islamic Globalism. The era of Jamal Abdel Naser (1952-1970) marked the peak in Arab nationalistic aspirations. The fuel that Naser used to burn the Arab nationalistic emotions was none but the Arab Israeli conflict. The most repressive regimes in the Arab world today, including Saddam Hussein, Asad and Qaddafi, draw sympathy and support of the Arab public by means of the conflict in Palestine. As such, Great Britain was creating a tool for its own use when it decided unilaterally to create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. After the Second World War, the US emerged as a new super power in the world arena. The US inherited much of the old colonial package from Britain, France and other colonial powers. Part of the heritage that the US inherited was the state of Israel with all the conflicts surrounding its existence and security. As in the case of Britain, the US continued to perceive Israel as vital to the national interest of the US. The US statesmen (presidents, secretary of states, national security advisors) continue to declare time and time again, that the security of the state of Israel is vital to the American national interest. Although this sounds satisfying to many Jews around the world, the reality remains, that the US as a legal inheritor of British power, views Israel as a vehicle to its national interest. The national interests of the US in the Middle East are: stability and continuous flow of oil. Israel continues to draw support from the US under the main premise that Israel is positioned to help the US achieve its national interests in the area. More recently, some Arab countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia try to compete with Israel on the same ground. During the cold war era, the conflict in Palestine was one of the major hot areas for both sides of the cold war: the Soviet Union and the US. The US sided with Israel, whereas the Arab countries with direct interface to the conflict (Syria, Egypt, Iraq) were the allies of the Soviet Union. The US has expressed a serious interest in the Golan Heights, where US troops may be stationed in case Israel withdraws from that area. The competition between Europe and the US for securing national interest in the Middle East relies on the conflict between Israel and the Arab countries. On Sunday, April 22nd, Shimon Perez in a speech in front of AIPAC, granted his gratitude to the US, while blasting Europe for anti-semitism. In brief, the international politics played a major role in creating a conflict
zone in Palestine. International politics continue to play a major role in preventing
the resolution of the conflict. More importantly, the Jewish people, as much
as the Arabs, are used as vehicles for achieving the national interests of the
western powers, at the expense of Jewish and Arab blood and lives. The Impact of ReligionI would like to state without any hesitation that both Islam and Judaism are victims of the political conflict in Palestine. As stated previously, the conflict in Palestine came as a direct result of the disintegration of the Ottoman State. The wars that took place between the Jews and the Arabs were not carried out by Islam or Judaism. However, Islam as well as Judaism has been used to add heat and complexity to the conflict. The migration of Jews to Palestine is quite often encouraged under the slogan of the promised land. On the other hand, the fight against the Jews in Israel is quite often carried out under the umbrella of Jihad in Islam. In reality, the use of Islam in the conflict is more recent relative to the age of the conflict. Since the early 1920’s until the mid 1980’s, the war has been fought under various Arab nationalistic or Arab socialistic banners. Hizbullah in Lebanon, was actually the first serious attempt to use Islam as a vehicle to fight Israel in south Lebanon. The Islamic revolution in Iran helped in that direction. In Palestine, the rise of Islamic fighting groups emerged after the Intifadah in 1987. The late Afghan war against the Soviet invasion helped revive the Islamic Jihad concepts in many places in the world including Palestine. In the absence of an Islamic State, and centralized Islamic governance, it is difficult to control the actions of people, individuals and groups. This is especially true, when Muslim people in Palestine and elsewhere live in severe and desperate conditions. The role of an Islamic State will be to organize the efforts of war as well as peace, such that out of order actions can be easily controlled or dismissed. Moreover, it should be noted that Islam as an ideology, as a political system, and as a state was ousted from the Muslim world at the same time when the decision to crate Israel was taken. In 1924, Mustafa Kamal of Turkey officially abolished the Islamic State of Khilafah in Istanbul. History provides sufficient evidence that Mustafa Kamal had collaborated with the British rule before and after abolishing the post of the Khaleefah. Hence, the argument that Islam has had a direct impact on the conflict in Palestine lacks historical evidence. Does Islam have a solution to the conflict? The answer is definitely yes. But the Islamic solution is not a theoretical one. In other words, the Islamic way to resolve the conflict requires that Islam be in charge of the law of the land. Islam can not provide a solution to be worked by secularist entities that use parts of Islam to suit their goals and ambitions. I will address the Islamic solution to the conflict at the end of this lecture. The Notion of Terrorism I have not seen a term so subjective in its definition as much as the term of terrorism. Within the scope of the Palestinian conflict, the PLO was once called a terrorist group. Then, it was called a peace partner. Arafat was once considered a terrorist; then he was awarded a Nobel Prize. Shamir was considered a hero of independence. Then he was called a terrorist by the British forces. The Hagana, Lehi and other Jewish fighting groups are called independence fighters by one side and terrorists by another side. Hamas and Jihad groups are independence fighters on one side, and terrorists on another side. Before September 11th, both groups were called freedom fighters, and now they are called terrorist groups. The same thing applies to almost any group in the world. In short, the issue of terrorism fluctuates based on whose interest is at stake. The self-explosions that take place in Israel will always be viewed as terrorist attacks by the Israelis, no matter who gets killed and who survives. Similarly, the assault on Palestinians by Israeli army and police will always be viewed as acts of state terrorism, no matter what the motives and the objectives are. Therefore, the accusation and counter accusation of terrorism will not bring
an end to the bloodshed and violence in the area. This is not a game, where
the winner is the one who scores more accusations against the other. This is
the game, in which every one in the field is a loser. The only winner seems
to be the one who sets the rules of the game. Unfortunately, these rules have
been set a long time ago, even before this generation that is paying the price
with its own blood and life. The rules have been set in a manner to sustain
violence. The rules are such that any solution is either a half solution, or
not a solution at all. Proposed SolutionsThere are basically two proposals to resolve the conflict in Palestine. To begin, I would like to mention that both are temporary solutions and will only put the conflict into sleep for some time. I will address a more comprehensive solution in my concluding remarks. The first proposal is the British proposal. The British proposed the creation of a secular (non religious) democratic state that would include Palestine (Israel and the west Bank and Gaza) and Jordan. The state would have a mixed population (Jews and Arabs – Muslims and Christians). Shimon Perez detailed this proposal in his book “Towards a New Middle East”. Also, this proposal was entertained by the late Tunisian President Bourgaiba, one of the British loyalists in the Middle East. Also, Qaddafi recently repeated this proposal before the summit of the Arab leaders in Beirut in March, 2002. The strength of the proposal is that it can easily hide the refugee problem, because those refugees who currently live in Jordan will essentially be living in the state of Palestine without having to move from their current locations. It also hides the issue of Jerusalem, being the capital of all at the same time. The main problem with this solution is that it collides with the US vision of the Middle East. The US fears that such a state would have tremendous regional power that it may have a serious impact on US interests in the area, especially in the Gulf. This problem alone is sufficient to turn the proposal down, at least for the time being. The second problem with this proposal is that it does not work. The secular democratic state in Palestine will leave the Jews a minority. However, the state has to be designed such that the main governing body has to be Jewish. This means that the seeds of the conflict continue to be there and at one point they will grow into a violent conflict. On the other hand, if the Arabs will control the governance, then the Jewish goal and dream of a Jewish state is compromised. Again, the conflict continues to be there. The second proposal is the American one. The Americans have, for a long time, proposed a two state solution in Palestine: one state for the Jews, and the other for the Palestinians. The first time the proposal was presented was in 1964 during the Arab Summit in Jerusalem. The Arab leaders under the leadership of Abdel Naser proposed the creation of the PLO. The objective of the PLO was to create a Palestinian State in the West Bank (which was then under the control of Jordan). It took several wars and many lives on the sides of the Arabs and the Jews to come close to this proposal. The main advantage to this proposal is that it is backed by the US. The US assures Israel of continuous support and backup. Also, the majority of the Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria back the proposal. Officially, the Arab leaders adopted this proposal in their latest summit in Beirut (March 2002). President Bush attained a full recognition for this proposal from British Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2002. The main problem with this proposal is that it does not work. The refugee issue will continue to be alive. Israel cannot absorb Palestinians into Israel. The refugees, although they may be turned into citizens in Jordan and Syria, will continue to be a time bomb that can turn into an explosion sooner or later. The other problem is the issue of Jerusalem. Jerusalem continues to be a holy place for all Muslims in the world. Jerusalem can recreate the conflict at any moment. The third problem is that the proposal limits the scope of the Jewish state. The proposal will stir Jewish anger, once the Jews realize that they have been used to advance the American agenda and that they will continue to depend on American support and defense. All the parties involved know that the two state solution is only a temporary one. However, the US has decided to go ahead and implement the solution. Israel, out of skepticism and fear that the Palestinian state may pose a threat to its own existence, carried a pre-emptive strike during the last few weeks. The strike’s main objective is to remove the majority of the fighting elements in Palestine. Then, the Palestinian state will be born without a strong collection of warlords. I am not sure how the Israelis under Sharon think, but this approach will grant security for more than a few months or years at best. The other concern that the Jews in Israel must have is their complete dependence on the US for food and security. The dynamics of the world are changing so fast. The economic as well as the political order are shifting rapidly. It is unclear whether the US will continue to enjoy unchallenged power in the next few years. Several more economic collapses like that of Enron and Lucent may shift the American priority altogether and cause a diversion of attention from external affairs to internal ones. Israel will not be given a priority over the American self interest. As long as Israel advances the cause of the American agenda, then Israel will enjoy the highest level of support and be given high priority. But, if and when the balance of power begins to shift, and Israel will no longer add a significant value to the American cause, then it can be laid off. That is why the American proposal is temporary, risky, and has an unpleasant future. Before I end this section, I would like to confirm that the majority of the parties involved in the current Palestinian politics are in fact with the American proposal. That includes the PLO, the Islamic groups of Hamas and Jihad. It will include Syrian backed groups such as Hizbullah and others, once the Syrian part of the solution is implemented. Dr Mohammed Malkawi Source: KCOM Journal Please send your questions and comments regarding this article to palestine@khilafah.com |
Islamic Revival Homepage
site designed and maintained by Sultanah X