“…Surely God does not change the condition in which a people are in until they change that which is in themselves." (Qur'an 13:11)
Introduction
The question of Israel being a legitimate country, the issue of withdrawing to its 1967 borders, its complete dissolution, its oppression of the Palestinian and other people (Arab, Muslim, Christian, peace activist et al), the total explicit and at times implicit backing of its existence, its policies and its operations by Western and even some Muslim governments, its relations with Arab and other countries; all these issues have been addressed to short and great extents by many learned as well as predisposed individuals. It is well known that the Zionist agenda, which was in existence a long time before the creation of the State of Israel, was actively working towards the formation of a Jewish national home somewhere in the world, its primary choice seemingly being in Palestine. However, what I aim to look at is the Islamic viewpoint with regards to, as traditional Jews call it, "the Zionist State".
Setting it up
It is a historical fact that the United Nations imposed on historic Palestine and its people the State of Israel after mass immigration to the same lands of many Jews, which was the main aim of the Zionist apparatus. The idea was that by increasing the population of Jews in the Holy Land and by employing violent strong-arm tactics with the likes of Haganah (of whom Ariel Sharon was once a member), Irgun and the Stern Gang, that a natural situation would arise subduing the native (predominantly Muslim) Palestinians and resulting in the formation of a Jewish State. With Palestine under British Mandate rule, this would make it even more practical for the Jewish lobby in Britain to work towards the new State.
After the defeat of the Muslim Ottoman Empire after the First World War and the subsequent withdrawal of its grip over the Middle East, France and Britain (with the tacit approval of Russia) took it upon themselves in the form of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide that area of the world between them. This was with no regard to what the native population of those lands wanted, and indeed rebellions did take place; these ambitions were a natural extension of the colonial hold on the Indian sub-continent. The issues at stake were, as is always the case in international politics, the securing of economic interests and expanding spheres of influence. The records are there for everyone to see of the Arab riots of the 20s, being a simple response to the rest of the world (League of Nations and later the U.N.) forcing upon them firstly a Mandate for the British to rule over them and lastly for the Jews to take over their land. Jewish immigration and settlement, forced eviction, massive land sales to Jews and Zionist enterprises, coupled with the lobbying of wealthy Zionists and the collusion of puppet regimes in the Arab lands set up by the British led to the proclamation of the State of Israel in 1948 C.E.
The point that warrants highlighting is that Britain and France deliberately infused into the Middle East the idea of Arab Nationalism that led to its break-up from Ottoman hands. It is well-documented how Hussein I and Ibn Sa'ud were bought and played against each other and also the fact that many former Ottoman officers later manned positions as part of the British Mandate in terms of civil administration in the occupied territories; in the case of the area in question this included almost the entire Middle East. It is quite true that people are given the leaders they deserve and it is a reflection on the Ummah of the type of treacherous rulers that they were given back in those days.
It is tempting to advocate that as these lands were once under Islamic jurisdiction, they must and are forever more to be so under such an authority, even though it may have, in practice, ceased to exist. Nevertheless, the State of Israel today is an illegal occupying force that has no basis in Shar'iah, or International Law with regards to the Occupied Territories: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. As regards to the rest of Israel "proper", the dilemma is that even though parts of it is stolen land, when the resident population, predominantly Jewish, live there and have lived now for at least two generations there is currently no Muslim power that can come along, evict those Jews who see it as their home now, and facilitate an implementation of the right of return.
Politics is by its nature treacherous, and it is almost always based on self-interest or the propagation of someone else's. In this instance the Zionist Jews lobbied tirelessly and eventually succeeded in attaining the backing of Great Britain in securing a homeland for the Jews. This resulted in the issuing of the famous Balfour Declaration of 1917 C.E. I reproduce it below to highlight an important point:
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
Verdict
Great Britain is guilty. It is guilty for telling a homeless man "you can go and live in the house of John Doe, and not to worry for I will help you throw John out of the house". This is what Britain and the rest of the non-Muslim world has aided in: the forced displacement of a people some of whom still have deeds on tracts of land now occupied by Israelis.
It is to be noted that Balfour was at the time Foreign Secretary, and although the policies in realising the goals of the declaration altered over the years slightly (e.g. Churchill's White Paper of 1922 which somewhat limited Jewish immigration), the foreign policy objective of the British government never seemed to have wavered on its long-term goal: to complete the promise to Jews of making a home out of Palestine. Just imagine the lobbying power of the Zionists of that time and compare it now to the pro-Israeli foreign policies of the American government with groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
So from the Islamic perspective, and also for anyone with who has a sense of basic right and wrong, the State of Israel comprises of essentially a group of criminals who have stolen land and forcibly evicted the occupants, killed them and are now persecuting their children.
Amidst the Confusion
Since this is the case, certain Shar'iah issues need to be pointed out and clarified in relation to the so-called terrorist organisations that operate in that part of the Middle East. By now it must be blaringly obvious that there is a massive propaganda campaign in effect on a global scale that is implicitly targeting an Islamic revival on the part of this Ummah. Mujahideen are being labelled terrorists, martyrs are being labelled suicide bombers and a return to the fundamentals of Islam is called fundamentalism or Islamicism (usually benign terms but hijacked in this new war of words).
Unfortunately, Muslims themselves have become caught up in this cycle of blame and self-blame with many "scholars of the court" following and appeasing the slogans of devious non-Muslim agencies, resulting in even more confusion. The frequency with which the words "Islamic", "terrorist", "Muslim" or "terrorism" are used in the same sentences let alone the same news reports begs belief. In a world fraught with confusion both amongst Muslims and non-Muslims alike about what Islam really stands for, this is a time more than any other where we must seek to rectify any shortcomings in our own implementation of the Deen, exhort our communities to the Way of Allah and His Messenger and literally project the image of Islam which our Beloved Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) intended for us to show to the world.
In the Middle East, for one area, this image must resonate within the legitimate struggle of a forcibly displaced people, specifically the means of that struggle. The paramilitary resistance operations that organisations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade carry out need to be put into their proper context by answering the following question:
The operations that they conduct directly against the aggressing armed forces of Israel are most surely justified. The right to defend one's life, property and land is an unalienable and timeless right no matter what political and media spin one puts on it. Not being acquainted with their operational history and modus operandi, if they have ever or do ever conduct martyrdom operations against civilians then I, for one, am opposed to that. I will, however, expand on this shortly.
Under Siege
There is a very pressing issue that has been to an almost total extent removed from the minds of the Muslims especially here in the West. Consider the following three scenarios:
Allah forbid that these incidents should ever take place. However, although the first two have not taken place (and Allah willing never will), the last scenario sadly has. The Ummah looks on, paralysed. In fact, Jewish fanatics in Israel have plotted to destroy the whole of Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa in order to rebuild the Third Temple (the last Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. by the Romans and they have had a wish to rebuild it since). This is no secret; it is a well-known reality that one can appreciate even by following one of their dailies (e.g. Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post).
It is our duty to support the noble warriors of Palestine in defence of this site and all Muslim Lands and never be taken in by the deception of labelling them suicide bombers, terrorists or any other slander, for if we come to Our Lord on that Day and He asks us after informing us that these slaves of His were fighting for Him, His slaves, His Noble Sanctuary and His Holy Land, that what did we do? What will we say? So, at the very least we should be including in our prayers day in and day out for the liberation of Palestine, indeed all Muslim lands. Allah's plan is not necessarily on the same timescale as ours, and we must have patience. For the first time that Jerusalem was occupied, it took about 90 years to retake it, and during that time the Muslims were constantly working on themselves spiritually as well as materially.
Upholding justice by all means
There is an issue of Islamic military ethics that needs to be addressed also including the issue of valid and invalid targets as the categorisation of non-combatants can be a dubious endeavour. It is true that Israel is an extremely militarised society either with a great proportion of the population having been on active military duty at some point in their lives or being on reserve duty, this applies to both men and women. Over 18s (with differences in time requirements of men from women) are obligated to serve a mandatory period and as a result there might be a fine line between combatant and non-combatant, especially when it comes to non-active citizens (in terms of being off-duty from the army permanently, temporarily, on leave from the army; obviously there are a number of scenarios that need to be considered further).
The fact that Israel is an occupying force and the fact that Palestine is, in effect, a battlefield could lead one to argue that if the enemy brings non-combatants to the battlefield it should not deter our efforts to defeat the enemy since it is the enemy's responsibility for the welfare of its own people. Furthermore, bringing innocents to come and live or "occupy" Palestine is tantamount to deliberately, knowingly and willingly placing them in the line of fire. So does one then refrain from attacking or defending oneself from the enemy on account of using the aforesaid scenario because of the presence of non-combatants and their use by the Israeli government as human shields? It is definitely advisable to the Mujahidin in the field to avoid non-combatant fatalities and casualties as much as is feasible to do so while at the same time maximising operational effectiveness against their adversaries. Opposing fighters, despite the fact that they may be genocidal maniacs, still have certain basic rights in Islam and according to the Shar'iah and furthermore, the deliberate targeting of the common man, woman and child is undeniably contrary to the will of Almighty Allah. Hence, indiscriminate killing is an alien concept to the strategies of war in Islam.
To the future
There has been much talk in the decades since the labour of the Zionists spawned Israel upon the world regarding solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many peace accords and documents have been signed since 1967 to no practical avail. On the one side you have the State of Israel, which when looked at by its actions, is in no mood to grant statehood to the Palestinians beyond civil self-governance and even that by its own pro-West stooges such as later in his life Yasser Arafat and now the cuddly Abu Mazen. The settlements continue to encroach, the occupation drags on and more Palestinians by the day are persecuted and outright murdered just for being who they are.
On the Palestinian side Yasser Arafat was a deputy sheriff of western strategic interests, a "representative" of the Palestinian people with whom they could officially eradicate the Palestinian reality by continued concessions and subdued positions of bargaining. They know they have to deal with someone, so why not just get an Arab that will favour the West, because if Arafat was not so pro-West then he never would have gotten the amount of publicity that he has enjoyed for decades. (Ask yourself, would a prominent Muslim scholar or speaker be allowed to give his legitimate anti-Israeli views to the U.N. General Assembly?) The days of Arafat are over and now we have an increasingly authoritarian figure-head as part of the hoped-for two-state solution in the form of Mahmoud Abbas, who incidentally shouldn't even be President according to Palestinian common law.
With the rise of the Islamic Hamas as a legitimate alternative there was hope in 2006 of a way forward, with a political force with some backbone, serious about protecting the Palestinians from all manner of further exploitation and subjugation and, dare I say, even a way out of the Palestine quandary. Yet, the double standards head reared its ugly head again: the Americans and the Europeans are not happy bunnies when the great democratic machine doesn't swing their way and instigated sanctions and sidelining to isolate Hamas from its constituencies. What happened? They became even more popular to the frustration of Western and Israeli politicians who had the back of the weakening Palestinian Authority President. Leading to the showdown of December 2008/January 2009, this has dented even more the standing of the perpetually threatened Israel, not to mention the non-existent peace process. The standoff continues...why? Israel will not tolerate the prospect of a self-sufficient Palestinian Islamic Republic next door.
Conclusion
'Long Live Palestine.' The legitimacy of Palestinian self-determination is undeniable. Unfortunately, it is embroiled in a wider regional and global power play. This is of the threat to the West and its proxy in the Zionist State of the resurgence of Islam, a unifying bond for well over a billion humans across ethnic, national and political boundaries. The West couldn't care less if Muslims were of some other religion; the point being our collective objective is in opposition to the hedonistic, exploitative and ungodly paradigms of Western countries. Yet, regardless of the nightmares keeping Western strategists up at night, the promising verse at the beginning of this piece is a Divine and timeless contract with the believers, the followers of the last authentic revelation to mankind. Allah willing, we will see this realisation.
With regards to Israel and the Palestinian question in particular, there will never be peace as long as Israel controls Palestinian land, tramples the rights of the people and flouts International law. If there was a sincere intention of resolving the decades-old conflict with the interests of all sides taken into consideration, I believe it would have materialised by now. Instead, it may be that the resolution will come about through the progressive demise of the Zionist state. With the American economy in tatters (partly for financing Israel's crusade) and the Israeli demographic time bomb, this may be sooner than people think. Until then, the resistance will continue. It will, as it has for decades.