Reason Behind the Conflict: Political Comment
The current sensational media coverage of 'Israel's suffering' in Haifa is geared to prepare public opinion in Israel regarding its fragile security. This will help Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's kadima party to gain the much needed public support for its adherence to the US sponsored 'roadmap'. Prior to the conflict, Israel's public opinion was skewed heavily towards the Likud party's (right wing ) policy which rejected any 'land withdrawals' initiated by the US and roadmap quartet. Also, Israel will go down in the history as an entity which could not even confront a group like Hizbullah. This will serve as a reminder to Israel that adopting military tactics is not the way forward for them. Perhaps this is the message US wanted to convey to the Israel.
A completely humiliated Israel will be easy to engage in the peace process and complete the roadmap.
06/08/2006
Freelance Activist
Muslim woman, activist, freelance writer, Graduate in Engineering and Post Grad in Political philosophy.
طروحات ونقضها
From the Editor's Desk:
- Use of Political Terminologies
- Nature Vs Nurture
- False Maxims in Jurisprudence
- Forbidding Munkar
- Islam and Freedom
- Between two exteremes
- Those who pretend to believe...
- Let them Plot..
- War and Peace
- Challenge to the free World
- Spotlight: Muslims in the West
- Hijab In The Face Of The Notorious Campaign
2 comments:
Palestine
Regarding the conflict in the Middle East, and specifically in Palestine, many different perspectives are put forth. Some people view it as a violation of human rights, while others perceive it as a refugee problem & still others present it as a class struggle in the area, which is part of the larger class struggle that is taking place in the world. In reality, although some of these issues are more or less symptomatic of the conflict, the conflict in Palestine is none of the above.
Palestine is a Muslim land that was at one time under Islamic political sovereignty. In the middle of this century, this land was occupied by an external force. Therefore, this land must return to Islamic sovereignty and authority. In this perspective, Palestine is not different from any other Muslim land that has been taken from Muslims. When we discuss Islamic sovereignty and authority, these concepts cannot be realized or even comprehended unless their basic historical and ideological background is understood. Since the advent of Islam some 1400 years ago, it was presented as a comprehensive ideology and, from the first day, there was a clear ideological conflict between Islam and other ideas. It took the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (saaw), who came for all of humanity, thirteen years to establish Islam as a political entity. After that, the struggle assumed another dimension. Before establishing Islam as a political entity, the struggle was only ideological and political struggle. However, after establishing the Islamic State, the State assumed the responsibility of carrying the Islamic ideology to the whole world and this, in turn, resulted in military confrontations.
It did not take the Islamic State a very long time to rise and establish itself as the number one state in the entire world. Upon the passage of a few centuries, the Muslim lands in the Middle East were under attack from both East and West. The Crusaders hailed from Europe, and the Mongols sprang from the East. Eventually, all of these campaigns failed. It is worth mentioning here that one of the leaders of the Crusades, Louis the Ninth, heading the sixth Crusade, wrote in his memoirs after he was defeated and imprisoned that although the Muslims may lose a battle here and there, they cannot be defeated in war. Therefore, if we, the Europeans, need to launch a new campaign against Muslims, this should not take place on the battlefield, but rather, there should be a new kind of war against the Muslims. He also mentioned that during the Crusades, the Arab Christians fought alongside of Muslims and, hence, the Europeans need to gain the loyalty of Arab Christians. In addition, he recommended in his memoirs that the east coast of the Mediterranean should be taken away from Muslims so as to establish a permanent base in the region.
Since the seventeenth & eighteenth centuries, a new kind of war was launched. It employed a suite of intellectual & ideological means and tools. In 1917, when WWI wound down, the British commander, General Allenby entered Jerusalem and declared that the Crusades are now over. At the same time, the French commander, General Gorro entered Damascus and immediately went to the grave of Salahuddin, who defeated the Crusaders in the twelfth century, and kicked his grave saying: ''Wake up Salahuddin! We came back again.''
All of this materialized as the result of collusion between France and Britain. At that time, the US was in isolationary phase and did not intervene in Old World politics. Britain and France developed their designs on the Muslim World with the objective of preserving their long term interests in the region. This would not be guaranteed through any permanent, physical occupation.
Therefore, Britain and France channeled their energies via different fronts, such as the intellectual and ideological venues. They began to propagate non-Islamic ideas, through specific intellectuals, such as the orientalists and others recruited from among the Arabs and Turks. They started to propagate ideas such as nationalism and secularism. The second front they worked on was to establish permanent relationships and connections with some influential families in the region, such as the Hashemites, the Sa'uds, and the Gulf Sheikhs. These families provided much assistance and until today, support Europe and other colonialist powers. The third front they worked on engineered by Britain, was to establish a permanent political entity for the Jews in Palestine. In this regard, one of the Zionist leaders, Ormbsey Ghor, wrote some comments on the Arab national movement, which was lead at that time by Faisal, the son of Shareef Hussein Bin Ali. He said in his comments that ''the Arab national movement headed by Faisal does not differ much from the Zionist movement. The Zionists have to learn about this fellow movement, whose supreme values and objectives are to restore Arab nationalism.'' This is a very clear indication that, at one time, both pan Arabism and Zionism were working hand in hand.
To establish this political entity for the Jews, many discussions took place in Britain among both Zionists and British officials. The main points of discussion were to initially define the borders of this new entity and second, to define the nature of this entity. Should it be a separate entity? Should it have complete independence? All of these discussions took place prior to the Balfour declaration in 1917. Regarding the definition of the Israeli border, for example, Ben Gurion stated, ''The Israeli border cannot be defined. The Israeli border should be like the deer-skin. When the deer grows, its skin grows automatically.'' Some defined the border to reach the Euphrates river in the East. Regarding the nature of this entity, some suggested a totally independent entity, while others, like C.G. Montefiore, President of Anglo-Jewish Association, suggested a democratic secular state. In this regard, Monteviors said, ''It is much better for the Jewish people to enjoy the freedom granted in many parts of the world than to create a national homeland for the Jews. At anytime, the number of Jews that will end up in Palestine will only be a small percentage of the Jewish population. My friends, we don't wish to impede the establishment of the settlements or decrease the immigration to Palestine. On the contrary, we would like to see more of it, and we support the establishment of self rule whenever the conditions are right, irrespective of to whom belongs the sovereignty in Palestine. We support the transfer of power to the Jews whenever the number of Jews reaches the necessary majority.''
This and other documents were published in the book: ''Palestine Papers or The Seeds of the Conflict,'' by the British author Doreen Ingrams. In these discussions, the British historian Twenby, who was serving in the ministry of the overseas colonies, said that ''our basic principle is to create a Palestinian state where Jews and non-Jews enjoy the rights of a Palestinian citizenship. This complies with the memorandum of Mr. Balfour that the Hebrew language may be used as the official language, but the Jews should not be allowed to establish a state within a state.''
In 1948, Britain declared that it was going to withdraw from Palestine. The so called Arab nations sent their armies to fight in Palestine. Those armies were lead by a British commander, General Glob, who was at that time the chief of staff for the Jordanian army. The fighting was actually a fake one, as all people in the area were aware of. Then, the state of Israel was established, and its independence declared. The people of Palestine were kicked out of their homes, and they settled as refugees in the surrounding countries of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt.
Until that moment, i.e. before WWII, the US was still in its self imposed isolation. Even when it participated in WWI, and although Woodrow Wilson declared the principles which helped in shaping the League of Nations, America went back to its isolation after the end of the war. However, in WWII, the situation changed. America entered the war and decided not to go back to its isolation. This was very clear from the way and the time in which America decided to participate in the war. This was also clear from the Roosevelt-Stalin-Churchill negotiations that materialized to arrange for shaping the postwar era. At that time, it seemed that America decided to enter the area (the Middle East) to establish its strategic interests, even if it had to conflict with the interests of European countries, especially Britain and France.
The US sponsored UN resolution 181, which declared the partition in Palestine to establish two nations and two states in Palestine. From that time, America worked consistently towards this. Of course, the West Bank was immediately annexed to Jordan. Currently, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan includes both the East and the West Bank. This unification was not recognized by the US at all. Until now, the US has not recognized the unity between the East and West Bank of Jordan. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized this unity.
In fact, the US has diligently worked from that time on to establish what would be known as the Palestinian state. This can be understood from many events which transpired during the last forty years. As an example, William Fulbright, at one time, was heading the foreign relations committee in the Senate. He visited Syria in 1960, when both Syria and Egypt were united as one state. In that visit, Fulbright supported the idea of creating a Palestinian entity in the West Bank. In 1964, Colonel Nasser of Egypt, who assumed power via the actions of Miles Copeland and the American ambassador in Cairo, called for the first Arab summit in Cairo, and the PLO was created. One of the Jordanian ambassadors in Cairo, Anwar Khatib, said in his memoirs: ''When my term in Egypt was over, I went to pay a farewell visit to President Nasser. In that visit, President Nasser said that to sign a treaty with Israel, we need the Palestinians. Nobody can sign the treaty on their behalf. Then, I asked him: Even you Mr. President? He replied: Who am I to sign such a treaty on behalf of the Palestinians? The son of Yaffa, Haifa, and Nablus is the one who has to sign such a treaty.'' Anwar Khatib said in memorandum that at that point even he had to ask himself; Is this why the PLO was created?
This really proves that US foreign policy and the regimes which worked in cooperation with the US were planning for this objective, which was to establish a Palestinian entity in the West Bank. This fact is very clear from the manner in which America supports the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank. They are trying to improve this formula, so as to reach a complete and independent Palestinian State. As an example, some ministers in the Israeli cabinet stated this fact very clearly. Just recently, the Jewish Committee on the Middle East, established in the US and representing itself as a national committee directed by American Jews, completely supported a fully independent Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital.
In 1956, when Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt, the American president at that time, Eisenhower, took very firm steps and he even had to threaten Ben Gurion to withdraw his troops from Sinai, and so he did. In the 1967 war, there was another ground of conflict between American and Israeli policies. For example, Israel deliberately hit the USS Liberty, stationed in the Red Sea knowing that it was a US vessel. Therefore, the interests of both Israel and the US are not alike. That is why President Nixon at one time said: ''There is no strategic obligation which forces us to support Israel. It is just our moral obligation that forces us to support Israel.''
After the war of 1973 between Israel and Egypt, Kissinger began his shuttling to the area to work for a peace settlement. When the Carter administration assumed was in effect, he had to get both Sadat and Begin to the US in Camp David (to sign the treaty). Many times, Carter had to twist the arm of Begin to compel him to sign the treaty. At one time, Begin said: ''We know what the US wants from us; they want the Israeli policy to be determined by any officer in the State Department, but this will never happen, because Israel is not a banana republic.'' This position of Israel is very well understood, because Israel refused to define its borders from the very beginning, although the UN resolution 181 mandates Israel to define its borders. During the Gulf War, this conflict between the US and Israel became very obvious. Israel tried to break the US coalition by attempting to hit Iraq in retaliation to the Scud attack by Iraq. It took tremendous efforts from the US to control Israel. Eagleburger had to fly to Israel and US patriot missiles with US staff had to be deployed there.
After the Gulf War, America called for a Madrid conference. This conference was held to reach a permanent settlement for the conflict in the Middle East. The US summoned all parties to the conflict to negotiate. The American policy was very clear: to define the Israeli borders and help in establishing a Palestinian entity or, in other words, to contain Israel. As Ian Stick put it in his article in Foreign Affairs (Winter 1993): ''The American policy is to change Israeli politics rather than changing the Israeli policy.'' From that time, it has been very clear that there exists a tug-of-war game between the two parties: Israel and the US. Every party wants to execute his own policy. The US wants a Palestinian entity or state, so as to contain Israel and serve as a buffer zone between Israel and the Arab nations. On the other hand, Israel wants to use the Jordanian gate to out reach the Gulf area and start investing and utilizing the Gulf oil. Of course, this means that Israel will have some kind of control over the Gulf oil, a matter which will not be appreciated by the US at all.
From Madrid up to this moment, Israel has been trying to shunt itself off the peace track and the American agenda by various means, such as the Oslo agreement. At the beginning, negotiations between Israel and the PLO, which led to the Oslo agreement, took place without US approval. The objective was to get off of the US track. The US knew about this agreement after it had already started and, at that time, the US policy was to contain this agreement and move it back to its track. Hence, the US called all parties to come to Washington to sign the agreement. However, Israel kept trying to get back to square one using many excuses. The US kept insisting that the peace process, regardless of what happened, must be adhered to.
In this conflict, it is very clear that Islam is neither a player in the conflict nor a driving force. The Muslim countries are used as tools in this conflict. However, this conflict was not created in a vacuum. The entire conflict has its roots in Europe working against the Ottoman Islamic State. Europe has pursued a new policy in confronting the Ottoman state. This confrontation took many forms. The European colonialist countries used the Zionist movement as a tool in that conflict. However, from an Islamic point of view, Palestine is a land that was once under Islamic sovereignty. Hence, the sovereignty & authority has to remain Islamic. It cannot be taken away from its people. It cannot be taken away even from Muslims. This conflict will not be solved at all as long as all parties to the conflict are ignoring or trying to ignore this reality of the conflict. Any attempt to ignore this fact or impose any sort of settlement which ignores this fact might be prove viable in the short run, but it will definitely create greater conflict in the long run. The only permanent solution is that this land has to return to Islamic sovereignty and authority.
07/08/2006
Question:
Going back to the issue of the conflict between Israel and the US. This conflict is not clear to the public. People do not see it in the media. For example, when Israel bombed the civilian places in Lebanon, The US president was swift to defend the Israeli position in public. So, how can we realize this conflict?
Answer:
Here, one has to realize that the US is a sovereign nation. Hence, it has its foreign policy. It is naive to say that the US does not have a foreign policy, or that the US just supports whatever Israel does. The US is not an Israeli satellite. The US has its own policy, which is dictated by Americans according to US interests and not to any other nation. President Nixon once said that politics is not Sunday school. Politics is not a non-profit organization. When America plans something in its foreign policy, it will be based on American interests. This is very natural and normal. Israel is a different nation and not part of the American states. Israel views its interests different from the way America views its interests. Israel wants to reach for the Gulf states. On the other hand, America will not allow Israel to control the oil resources in the Gulf. We all know what happened in the Gulf War and the reason behind that war. Can you imagine that America launched the Gulf War to maintain its interests in the Gulf and, yet, allow for a different nation, even if it was Israel, to take over the Gulf resources. So, on the long run, this is the Israeli objective.
Hence, it is expected to have a conflict between Israel and the US on the long run. Containing Israel is not an easy job. The Americans know this fact. On the one hand, they do not want to destroy Israel, but on the other hand, they want to contain it. This containment policy requires some tough measures sometimes. However, due to the nature of the Israeli entity, these measures have to be taken very carefully. Also, no one can ignore the ''Jewish influence'' inside the US. Maybe it is not to the point that some people are trying to say, but at least, there is some kind of influence through the lobby movements and the political action committees. Whenever the US wants to shape its policy, it has to take these issues in their consideration. In the article I referred to in my talk by Ian Stick, he mentioned that the policy of the US towards Israel, which is to change the Israeli politics and not the Israeli policy, needs at least a period of years to be accomplished. He suggested, for example, that the Jewish settlements have to be declared illegal by the US. This was in 1983. He said that since 1967, every American administration has stipulated that no US aid to Israel can be used by Israel to fund projects in the occupied territories. Later on, the Clinton administration cut 400 million dollars in loan guarantees to Israel. Ian Stick also mentioned that we had to help the Palestinians in the West Bank to implement the US policy. Those were the two main points in his article on how to implement the US policy towards Israel, to change Israeli politics and not Israeli policy. Changing Israeli politics means to change the Israeli political thinking, which considers Israeli borders as the deerskin. This is what the US is working to change, but this work is very delicate and has to be done very carefully. Sometimes it appears that the US is sponsoring a project for Israel, while in fact it would be working to contain Israel and get it back on the peace track
Post a Comment