|
|
Published on 10th April, 2005
Modified on 20th August, 2008
Israel and the Muslim World
By Professor Khurshid Ahmad
Transmitted by Sayyid
Muhammed Ali Taqawi
Glory to Allah who did take His Servant for a Journey by night
from the
Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque,
whose precincts WE did
bless, in order
that We might show him some of Our Signs.
He is the One Who
hears and sees (all things).
(al-Asra 17:1)
The question of recognizing a country relates to international
law, diplomacy and trade. It is not necessary for every
country to recognize each and every country, or to establish
diplomatic or trade relations with it. This issue is, in the
main, related to two aspects: first, whether the country with
which relations are under consideration is a legitimate and
sovereign entity; and second, if it is in our national
interests to establish diplomatic and trade relations with it.
The first question has its own legal, political and ethical
grounds, while the second one is concerned solely with
interests. Also, under international law and traditions it is
not necessary to recognize and establish of diplomatic and
trade ties with every country with which you are not in the
state of war. For various reasons, many countries did not
recognize one another for decades, without incurring any harm.
From a pure legal perspective, to recognize a country is to
accept it as a legitimate entity. According to international
law, a country should meet four conditions for this:
-
Defined
geographic borders.
-
Population.
-
Sovereignty and
-
Territory.
These are essential elements for a country to be recognized as
an independent entity. Recognition is, therefore, not
conferred on a country whose case is disputable with respect
to any of these four elements. A country or area that is under
the control of some other force is not recognized as
sovereign; it is also not recognized if it is considered as
lacking in legitimacy for any other reason - and this may span
a period of many centuries.
The case of Israel is altogether different from other
countries. The Palestinian land was not the original habitat of Israelis,
who entered it 1,300 years BC and occupied it after battles for 200 years.
They were twice moved out of the land. Romans expelled them completely
from Palestine in 135 AD. In the history of 6,000 years, Israelis' stay was
just about four to five hundred years in the Northern
Palestine and about
eight to nine hundred years in the South, whereas Arabs have been living for
2,500 years in the Northern and for 2,000 years in the Southern areas.
Zionists base their claim on the Palestinian land in a
so-called Divine pledge in the Bible. This is no more than a myth, at the most.
On the basis of this make-believe, imaginary right, Europe's rich and
politically ambitious Jew leadership launched a Zionist movement towards
the end of the 19th century. With temptation, oppression and suppression,
political manoeuvring and colonialist designs, and by pitching Arabs and
Turks against each other, they got foothold in this land during the times
of the British mandate. Thus, the goal of establishing a Jewish state of
Israel was realized apparently under a UN General Assembly resolution on
14 May 1948, but in reality by the use of force and military might and
Palestinians' forceful expulsion and genocide. Arther Koestler, a Jew
intellectual and writer, was enamoured in his youth by Zionism and left his home
in Germany to move to Jewish settlements (kibbutz). But when he witnessed
the cruelty meted out to Palestinians, he summed up the whole tragic
episode:
"One nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of
a third nation" (Arther Koestles, Promise and
Fulfilment,
London, 1949, P-4
In 1914, there were just 3,000 Jewish families living in
Palestine and their number could only reach 56,000 in spite of large-scale
emigration of Jews to Palestine after the First World War, whereas there were
644,000 Palestinian Arabs at that time. When Israel was given the form of a State
with the use of force, bloodshed and oppression, Jews held just 5.6 percent
of the Palestinian land and barely constituted 33 percent of
Palestine's population. It is worth mentioning here that the Jewish
population had increased ten-fold as Jews from 80 countries of the world had
been settled here for over a period of 30 years while Palestinians were
being expelled and their towns were being destroyed.
Through the UN resolution, 56 percent of the Palestinian land
was presented to Jews on a platter while the remaining 44 percent was
sanctioned to the independent State of Palestine. However, Israel's extremist
groups occupied 78 percent of the land when it was still the year 1948,
followed by occupation of what remained of Palestine, including Eastern
Jerusalem, in 1967.
We do not intend to narrate the whole tragic episode, we want
to highlight the historical fact that Israel is not a real and natural
State coming into existence on the basis of the right of self-determination of
the people of the region. Rather, it is a 'stolen' land and a state that has
come into being by expelling the original inhabitants from their lands
and settling the colonizers from outside. Without understanding the genesis
of this State, it is impossible its position in the region. It is not
a Middle Eastern State, it is an embodiment of a colonizing power's
domination and suppression in the heart of the Middle East, a state that is
devoid of legitimacy under the international law - and would remain so.
It owes its existence to 'occupation by force' and to accept occupation a
basis for conferring legitimacy to a country is not only a violation of
the international law, it also constitutes a menace to
international peace.
Writing in the International Herald Tribune, 25 July 2003, an
expert of international law John V. Whitbeek says that the roadmap is an
illusion. He rightly depicts the situation when says:
"The roadmap builds on a false premise, that the real
problem is Palestinian resistance to the 36 years occupation and not the occupation
itself."
He rightly concludes that not any so-called violence by
Palestinians but Israel's occupation of Palestinians' land is the cause of
problem. Peace is not possible without an end to the occupation.
It is necessary to keep in view the following facts in order
to understand the nature of and truth about this State:
Israel's Jews were not the original inhabitants of the region
- nor are they to this date. They were collected from all over the world and
given control of others' country by expelling the original inhabitants,
merely with sheer use of force and under the umbrella of colonial power. Then,
the United Nations was used for giving it legal legitimacy. These
outsiders are imposing their culture and life-style on the region and are
there only on the basis of force.
Israel is the only country in the world that has come into
being on the basis of the UN General Assembly's resolution in utter
violation of the UN Charter according to which people of a region can achieve
freedom only by exercising their free will and their right of
self-determination. Since Arabs were 66 percent of Palestine's population, the UN
refused to opt for plebiscite in connivance with the US,
Britain and Russia and
instead passed a resolution for Palestine's division for the establishment of
two states.
Even the manner in which this all was done was quite
questionable. The vote in the General Assembly was twice deferred due to lack of
majority as only 30 of the then 56 members favoured it, 13 opposed
it and 13
remained neutral. By deferring the vote twice and employing
pressure and money, the US and the Zionist lobby forced three neutral
countries (Haiti, Philippines, Liberia - which all were under the
United States influence)
to vote for the resolution for Palestine's division. So, this resolution
was adopted by committing three violations of the UN Charter:
a) Decision about a country's
future without plebiscite
b) Deferment of vote for two
times
c) Obtaining three countries
consent 'under duress'
These facts are part of history and are available in the form
of confessions in the speeches of the members of the United
States Congress.
Israel is the only country whose establishment and existence
depends on the continuous and unnatural transfer of population and occupation
of the region through oppression and the use of force and expansion of borders
through war and military might. Its borders are not yet defined. It got 56
percent of the Palestinian land in the wake of the UN resolution, which was
enhanced to 78 percent through military aggression in 1967. After the 1967
war, directives for its retreat to pre-war positions were issued through UN
resolutions 242 and 383, which were repeated in more than 20 resolutions, but
Israel refused to heed to these calls.
The roadmap that is being talked about these days practically
gives 40 percent of the 22 percent of land that was given to
Palestinians and the remaining area, which would be called Palestinian Authority
now and Palestinian State after 2005, would remain in shambles and at
the mercy of the occupier. This territory would neither be contiguous, nor
would transportation from one part to another be possible without
passing through Israeli check posts. Moreover, this so-called State would
never have its own army and the responsibility for law and order and policing
would be with Israel, which would control all highways and water resources.
Those who are talking about recognizing Israel today should
tell as to what is the basis of their logic and what is that they are
advocating for?
Here, it should be clearly understood that Israel's
ideological basis is founded on 'expanding boundaries', which is but another name
of imperialism and a threat to the whole region. Israel and its entire
leadership has never kept the matter a secret and have openly declared that
"Greater
Israel" is their goal. Ben Gurion had said in 1948:
"The Achilles heel of the Arab coalition is Lebanon. Muslim
supremacy in this country is artificial and can easily be overthrown. A
Christian State ought to be set up there, with its southern frontier on the
Litani.
We would sign a treaty of alliance with this state. Thus when we have
broken the strength of the Arab Legion and bombed Amman, we could wipe out
Tran Jordan; after that Syria would fall. And if Egypt dared to make war on us,
we would bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. We should thus end the
war and would have but paid to Egypt, Assyria and Chaldea on behalf of our
ancestors". (Ben Gurion diary, May 21, 1948)
"Before this, at Versailles Peace Conference in 1919, World
Zionist Organization had presented a map of its proposed Jewish State.
According to this map, the areas that Israel wants to occupy include Egypt
up to the Niles, whole of Jordan, whole of Syria, whole of Lebanon, a
big portion of Iraq, Southern region of Turkey and upper Hijaz up to Madina
Munawwarah". (My Diary at the Conference of Paris with Documents,
D.H.
Miller, vol 5, p 17)
Addressing the Israeli parliament Knesset in 1982, just three
years after the Camp David Accords, Israeli Prime Minister Manaehan Begin
had clearly said:
"By rights, the northern border of the Land of Israel
ought to include the Golan Heights. That it was not included following the
break-up of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and the establishment of Britain's
mandate over Palestine was due to the arbitrariness of colonial rulers in
an era that has passed, never to return. We are not bound by this
arbitrariness."
The World Zionist Organization and Israeli leadership have always
laid claim on accession of large areas and never showed any reservations in
expressing their plans for their forceful occupation.
"Palestine is a territory whose chief geographical feature is
this; that the river Jordan does not delineate its frontier but flows through
its centre". (Vladimir Jabotinsky, at the 16th Zionist Congress in 1929)
"Take the American Declaration of Independence for instance.
It contains no mention of the territorial limits. We are not obliged to state
the limits of our state". (Ben Gurion's Diary, May 14, 1948)
"To maintain the status quo will not do. We have to set
up a dynamic state bent upon expansion." (Ben Gurion in Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, The
Philosophical Press, New York, 1954).
"During the last 100 years our people have been in a process
off building up the country and the nation, of expansion, of getting
additional Jews and additional settlements in order to expand the borders here.
Let no Jew say that the process has ended. Let no Jew say that we are near
the end of the road". (Moshe Dayan in Ma'ariv, July 7, 1968)
Israel's Defence Minister Moshe Dayan had said in an interview
to the Times:
"Our father had reached the frontiers which were recognized in
the Partition Plan. Our generation reached the frontiers of 1949. Now the
Six Day generation has managed to reach Suez, Jordan and the Golan
Heights. This is not the end."
So, such are Israel's designs. Is there still any doubt about
the fact that by its nature Israel is not a peace-loving state but a
colonialist power? To recognize it, therefore, amounts to give legitimacy to
colonialism. It would be relevant to present the perceptions of some known
figures of the West about the State of Israel:
"If it is proper to 'reconstitute' a Jewish state which has not
existed for two thousand years, why not go back another thousand years and
reconstitute the Cannanite state; the Cananites, unlike the Jews, are still
there".- H.G. Wells.
"The cause of unrest in Palestine and the only cause, arises
from the Zionist movement and from our promises and pledges in regard
to it." (Sir Winston Churchill, 14 June 1921, in the House of Commons.)
"A Zionist state in Palestine can only be installed and
maintained by force and we should not be a party to
it".-( President Franklin Roosevelt, 5 March
1945).
"The Jewish state idea is not in my heart. I cannot understand
why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-mindedness and economic
obstacles. I believe it is bad. I have always been against
it."-
(Albert Einstein, 1946.) These references are found in William Baker's eye-opener
"Theft
of a Nation".
The conclusion at which William Baker, himself a scholar of
anthropology and history, arrives is:
"Now consider what has taken place from 1917 to the present
day. The entire country of Palestine has been "taken" by political
Zionists, and it would seem the entire world has believed, supported and participated
in the "theft" of an entire country from an entire nation.
Land, homes, customs, economy, everything which formerly belonged to the Arab people
have been replaced with Israeli control and influence, including the
very name of the country. The assumption that Palestine is the Jewish
homeland and they only require aid to get back what is "rightfully" theirs
has been so well propagandised that one is accused of
"discrimination" or anti-Semitism if not supportive of the occupation and theft of Palestine. But
we must insist on presenting the facts regardless of the emotional response
incurred from others, or there will never be a just and lasting settlement
of this tragic injustice." (Theft of a Nation, by William W. Bakes, Jireh Publication,
West Missouri, LA. USA, 1989
The matter does not stop here. Israel is not just a colonial
and expansionist State; it is also a racist one. If a Jewish State
is formed in a region on the basis of Jewishs majority there, perhaps no one
would object to it as there are also Hindu States (like Nepal), Buddhist
States (like Thailand and Sri Lanka) and Christian States (including the
Vatican) in the world. But this is not the case with Israel. Occupying others'
land, expelling them from their homes and establishing a State by
force and violence, its claim is that Jews being distinct and superior
than other nations on racial grounds and others are inferior, it is
their right to establish their Great State and rule over the rest. This is
quite like the mentality South African racist and apartheid regime. It is
this feature that makes Israel a racist state contrary to the UN Charter as well
the International Charter of Human Rights. This also makes it a
menace to peace in the region, besides its enjoying an upper hand over other
States in the region for its military power and nuclear capability.
Weizman, leader of the World Zionist Organization and first
President of Israel, ridiculing the democratic principle of majority and
minority in the wake of the Balfour Declaration, had contemptuously declared
that Jews were "qualitatively" better than the "native"
Arabs. He had said:
"The democratic principle reckons with the relative numerical
strength; and the brutal numbers operate against us for there are five Arabs
to one Jew...This system does not take into account the fact that there is a
fundamental qualitative difference between Jews and Arabs. The present
system tends to level down the Jew politically to the status off a native."
When Einstein asked him what would become of Arabs if
Palestine was given to Jews, Weizman shrugged:
"What Arabs? They are hardly of
any consequence."
The first Israeli Prime Minister Professor Ben Zion Dinur
wrote in the foreword to History of the Haganah:
"In our country there is room only for the Jews. We shall
say to the Arabs: Get Out! If they do not agree, if they resist, we shall drain
them out by force." (Quoted by Roger Garudy, The Case of Israel: A Study of
Political Zionism, London, 1983, p 38)
It is for such views that Arabs do not have the rights of
second and third grade citizens in Israel, while under the Law of Return every
Jew living in any corner of the world has the racial right to Israeli
citizenship. The law that Israeli parliament has recently passed, for whose repeal
the UN Human Rights Commission has demanded, holds that if an Arab man
living on the West Bank in Palestinian marries an Arab woman living in Israel,
the couple would have no right to live in Israel - either live separately, or
leave Israel! So, what more proof is required to realize that Israel is a
racist entity and not a democratic state. to recognize it would amount
to negating the dignity humanity has so far achieved.
In his charge-sheet
against Israel, renowned French scholar Roger Garudy maintains:
-
The Zionist state of Israel
possesses no legitimacy - historical, Biblical or juridical - in the place where it has been
established. Nor does it posses any moral legitimacy; its conduct, both
international and external ( racism, expansionism, state terrorism) makes it a state like
any other and even sets it among the worst of states resembling those
with which it is in fact most closely connected namely:
The United States, from which it takes over, for use against
the Arabs, the worst of that country's traditions, namely its treatment of
the Indians and the Blacks; whose worst actions, such as the Vietnam war, it
emulates and whose "democratic" fictions combined with support,
in Latin America, of the dictatorships it apes; South Africa, whose apartheid and archaic colonialism it
practices; and El Salvador - Guatemala, Paraguay (the chief piece of refuge
of the old Nazis), to whom Israel supplies arms and instructors to help
them terrorize their peoples.
-
The constituent doctrine of
the State of Israel, political Zionism - born not of Judaic tradition, which merely provides it with
camouflage and pretexts, but of Western nationalism and colonialism of the
19th century - is a form of racism, nationalism and colonialism.
-
This state, sprung
from this false ideology and from a series of acts of violence and terrorism, was created in the name of an
illegal decision by the United Nations' Organization (dominated at the
time by the Western powers) and by means of pressure and corruption. It
has survived not through its own work and its own strength but, just like the
Crusader states in their day, through an influx of money and weapons from the
West, and above all through the unconditional and unlimited backing of
the United States, which has used it as a major element in its world strategy, as a wedge driven into the Middle East.
-
The Zionist State of Israel,
stripped of the myths that were used to justify its foundation, and of the intellectual (and sometimes
physical) terrorism that is used to protect it, is thus simply one state
among the rest, without any halo or privilege or sacred character.
Because all states owe their origin, just like Israel's, not to any
"right" but to a certain relation of forces, and to accomplished facts.
(Roger Garudy; The case of Israel: A Study of Political
Zionism, London, 1983, pp157-158)
The issue of the Israel's recognition is
not just about recognizing or not recognizing a State. The land of Palestine
is important not only for Palestinians or Arabs, it is an important sacred
site for
all Muslims. Al-Qudus is a place of sanctity for us where there are Masjid
Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock. For it being the first Qibla for
Muslims, it is the most sacred place after Masjid Al-Haram in Makkah and Masjid
Al-Nabawi in Madinah.
The Holy Qur'an is witnessed to its sacredness:
Glory to Allah who did take His Servant for a Journey by night
from the
Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque,
whose precincts WE did
bless, in order
that We might show him some of Our Signs.
He is the One Who
hears and sees (all things).
(al-Asra 17:1) |
